Next Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Population Projections within the Framework of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways: A Seoul, Korea, Case Study
Next Article in Special Issue
The Procurement 4.0 Contributions to Circular Economy
Previous Article in Journal
Towards Sustainable Urban Mobility: Leveraging Machine Learning Methods for QA of Meteorological Measurements in the Urban Area
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of the Level of Digitalization of Polish Enterprises in the Context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

1
Faculty of Management, AGH University of Krakow, 30-059 Cracow, Poland
2
Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnologies, Technical University of Kosice, 04200 Kosice, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(13), 5718; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135718
Submission received: 23 April 2024 / Revised: 29 June 2024 / Accepted: 1 July 2024 / Published: 4 July 2024

Abstract

:
Due to the dynamic development of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, also known as Industry 4.0, the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the operation of enterprises, and the increasing demands of customers, more and more companies have taken and continue to take action to increase the level of digitalization. The implementation of innovative solutions contributes to the sustainability development of enterprises in various areas (economic, environmental, and social), streamlining processes and increasing effectiveness, efficiency, and quality of work. Such activities also contribute to the effective use of new opportunities by companies and strengthen their competitiveness and market position. The use of digital technologies increases the capacity of companies to innovate and grow, which brings significant benefits in terms of efficiency and competitiveness. The authors attempted to analyze and assess the level of digital transformation in enterprises in Poland. This study aimed to review the current state of digitization of companies, which made it possible to diagnose the level of digital maturity of Polish enterprises and to identify areas that will determine the activities of companies to quickly increase their competitiveness or improve internal processes. Qualitative and comparable methods were used in the analysis. The results show that the degree of digitization of Polish enterprises is increasing, and, in particular, was influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly half of the companies analyzed declared that they are increasing their budget for digitalization. The presented study has cognitive value regarding the assessment of the level of digitization of Polish enterprises. Both managers and decision-makers can benefit from the results of the study because decision-making regarding the development of SMEs is crucial to the effectiveness of the industrial strategy.

1. Introduction

“Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are vital to the European economy”, as written by M. Dallocchio et al. [1]. By offering a wide range of products and services, they contribute to the diversification of the economy. An important trend for SMEs that currently allows them to maintain their leading position is digitalization. It can help reach new customers, as well as contribute to improving their efficiency and increasing competitiveness [2].
Industry 4.0 focuses on production [3]. However, the degree of enterprise maturity and readiness to implement the I4.0 concept varies depending on geographical location, country, and level of regional development [4,5,6,7]. In [8,9,10], the standards, software, and hardware used to implement the I4.0 concept are presented, and the most important advantages and disadvantages are listed [9]. The identified advantages include increased efficiency, effectiveness, and organizational flexibility, higher profitability or production innovation, better product quality, and thus customer satisfaction and socio-environmental benefits. In turn, the main disadvantages include employee resistance, high implementation costs, the need for a highly qualified workforce, lack of access to financing, and development gaps [11,12].
Many publications, regardless of the industry in which companies operate [13,14,15], indicate, among other factors, the barrier of low awareness and lack of knowledge about I4.0, and the lack of human resources and appropriate competencies. There are also studies on the lists of competencies that are necessary to work in a digitalized production environment [16] or the model of competencies required for I4.0 [17]. The publication [14] presents pilot studies conducted among employees and students, which were aimed at identifying the competencies required in the context of Industry 4.0, and in [18] an attempt was made to determine which employee competencies are important for the development of I4.0 and which should be developed in Polish enterprises.
Disproportions in the understanding of the I4.0 concept, preparation, and readiness for its implementation indicate different levels of awareness and approach to issues related to I4.0 [19]. This is also confirmed by research on the broadly understood development and innovation (eco-development and eco-innovation) of selected EU countries regarding technologies and services, knowledge-based innovations, and organizational approaches, where the Czech Republic was classified as “lightweight” -> “super eco-innovation” enterprises, Slovakia as “lightweight eco-innovation” enterprises, and Poland and Hungary as a group of “grinding/desperate eco-innovation” enterprises [11,20]. The biggest barrier in Poland that may threaten the achievement of a higher level of development is high investment requirements. Undeniably, “Modernization and automation of the connected electromechanical control systems are pivotal to Industry 4.0 architectures” [21], and any innovative activity is undoubtedly related to the economic development of each country [11,22].
The literature on the subject lacks research and comprehensive comparative summaries on the changes in digital transformation in Polish SMEs, which were mainly forced by the pandemic. This dynamic development of digital transformation has caused not only scientific and research communities, but also enterprises such as Siemens, AVEVA, Deloitte, ASTOR, and S&T, to engage in the analysis of the transformation and its development. The activity of enterprises in this area is presented in publications, which are mainly reports analyzing the degree of digitization of companies. According to the above, this article presents the results of the assessment of the level of digitalization in Polish enterprises in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The main aim of the work was to diagnose the level of digital maturity of Polish enterprises and identify areas affecting their competitiveness and improvement of internal processes. Regarding the above, the following research question was formulated: whether Polish enterprises respond to challenges in digitalization and what areas of enterprise activity the introduced changes concern.
Only publicly available publications were included in the analysis. This procedure resulted from the need to analyze full texts of documents to ensure the quality and comparability of the analyzed reports. Therefore, the main contributions of this article include:
  • A review of the literature on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the process of technological and organizational transformation of enterprises, and the innovations that emerged therein;
  • Analysis of selected reports in terms of the level of digital transformation in enterprises in Poland;
  • Assessment of Poland’s level of technological advancement;
  • Discussion regarding barriers and obstacles to the progress of digitization of Polish enterprises based on the results of literature research;
  • Identification of areas requiring repair to improve the level of digitalization in Polish enterprises through the introduction of innovations.
The outline of this review article is as follows: Section 2 covers a literature review in the fields of Industry 4.0 and digitalization, and Section 3 presents the materials used and the research method used. Section 4 presents an assessment of the state of digitization of Polish enterprises in 2019–2021. The subsequent subsections of Section 4 present detailed results of the analytical procedure, including the technological maturity of Polish companies, the Digi Index, and the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI). Section 5 discusses the results and identifies research gaps in the presented and analyzed area. Finally, Section 6 describes the conclusions and planned directions for further research.

2. Literature Review

The concept of Industry 4.0, the so-called fourth technological revolution, was born in Germany, where, by government decision, an innovative development strategy was introduced [23]. It is based on the digital integration of production systems, using automation and digitization processes in the manufacturing industry and the creation of new types of factories, the so-called Smart Factories that enable the creation of intelligent value chains [24,25,26].
“The fourth industrial revolution has initiated many changes in production companies concerning the technologies or solutions that directly affect an organization” [14]. This new trend of Industry 4.0 combines digitalization and automation with the use of intelligent technologies and information technologies, not only in industry but also in other areas of the economy and business [27]. New technologies, thanks to which the digitization of industry could develop, enable more efficient use of resources and the creation of better living conditions for future generations, as well as influence sustainable social and environmental development [27,28]. Innovations that emerged during the Fourth Industrial Revolution were transformed into “innovations for the benefit of man and nature” [29].
The level of development and digitalization in individual countries around the world differs, as written in many publications [11,30]. Companies in some countries implement digitalization to improve product quality and efficiency (Japan, Germany), whereas in others they develop new business models based on digital offers and services (United States) [31]. The process of technological and organizational transformation of enterprises is possible thanks to the use of the latest IT solutions and IT infrastructure [32]. Industry 4.0 refers to, among other factors, technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), autonomous robots and vehicles, big data and artificial intelligence, cloud computing, system integration, and advanced simulation [32].

2.1. Internet of Things

The Internet of Things (IoT) is defined as a network of intelligent devices, objects, and computers that communicate with each other, collect, process, and share large amounts of data. This information is transmitted and processed in systems and then converted into an accessible interface that supports process monitoring and control [33,34]. Solutions such as intelligent sensors, the so-called “smart sensors”, are characterized by low energy demand, use secure communication protocols, and communicate wirelessly. They enable data collection even from machines that do not have built-in devices or drivers for communication [35]. The most common applications of IoT in recent years have been for intelligent buildings and cities, as well as for energy management in buildings [36,37,38,39].

2.2. Intelligent Robotization and Autonomous Vehicles

According to the definition of the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) based on the ISO 8373 standard [40], an industrial robot is “an automatically controlled, reprogrammable multifunctional manipulator, programmable in three or more axes, which can be permanently mounted or moved for use in industrial automation” [41]. Industrial robots played a key role in the Third Industrial Revolution, during which widespread robotization took place. Robotization of an enterprise brings many benefits, such as increasing efficiency, quality, and production lead time. Moreover, it makes it possible to reduce human participation in tasks that are unambitious and monotonous, require heavy physical effort, or pose a health risk [42]. However, on the other hand, in I4.0 the number of activities that require specialized knowledge increases, including planning, control, and information technology [43].
Autonomous vehicles also play an important role in Industry 4.0. “Nowadays, it is impossible to imagine everyday industrial life without mobile robots” [44]. A very popular technology that has been operating in the industry for many years is the so-called mobile robot, Automated Guided Vehicle (AGV). This is a solution that can follow designated routes and can support transport tasks such as transporting components or items from one station to another. AGVs are used primarily in logistics processes in warehouses and production in production plants, transshipment terminals, and distribution centers. “AGV systems are considered an important element of the created cyber-physical systems, whose task is to support material flows in intelligent factories” [45]. The benefits of AGVs, such as higher efficiency, accuracy, lower labor costs, and better safety, have resulted in human participation in activities related to small transport also being increasingly replaced by autonomous vehicles in other sectors such as retail trade or health care [46]. The number of automatically guided vehicles (AGVs) used in industry is growing [47], which “benefits the sustainable development of logistics operations supporting material flows in supply chains” [45] by reducing energy consumption [48], reducing CO2 and NO2 emissions [49], optimizing vehicle routes and minimizing empty runs [50], and reducing the number of accidents involving employees [51,52].
In addition to AGVs, in the era of Industry 4.0, there is also an innovative solution, i.e., autonomous mobile robots (AMRs). AMRs are intelligent solutions. They have very extensive communication capabilities with production systems and are equipped with a very large number of sensors and advanced software. They have access to a map of the workspace, which allows the robot to move independently. Route planning and obstacle avoidance become less complicated, which affects collision-free navigation [53]. Moreover, thanks to machine learning algorithms, autonomous mobile robots can optimize the route. The above solutions, in addition to reducing human involvement in solutions that do not add value, save space in the production hall [54].

2.3. Big Data and Artificial Intelligence

Collecting data from every organization is the basis for effective management of such an organization. Big data technologies enable the collection and processing of large data sets from various sources. Their use may bring technical, operational, economic, and environmental benefits [55]. “Big data analytics help predict future failures and problems associated with the grid from historical data, making the grid a smart grid” [56]. However, as the amount of data increases, the difficulty of analyzing it and thus drawing patterns and conclusions based on this information increases. The answer to the presented issue is big data technologies, which, with the help of AI, i.e., artificial intelligence, can process data more effectively and extract contextual information from them [57,58,59,60]. Big data technologies are characterized by the ability to integrate data from various sources and present information in a way that is accessible to a person who is faced with the challenge of making the right business decision [35,60].

2.4. Cloud Computing

Cloud computing is a technology that enables the provision of various hosting services via the Internet. It enables the collection, processing, analysis, and visualization of much larger amounts of information data using external computing power. It is used for time-unlimited data [61]. This digital solution provides a more flexible alternative to traditional methods, and “the cloud environment can be configured by users/developers to meet their specific needs and requirements” [62]. Cloud data processing is becoming more and more common in production because it does not require the preparation of appropriate infrastructure or significant hardware investments. Hybrid models are becoming common, in which data from various sources and data collected in the cloud are combined. Thanks to this solution, enterprises can analyze data more effectively, e.g., through the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, as well as communication via the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) [63,64]. Recently, remote servers have also been increasingly used by scientists and researchers to store and analyze their large data sets [65,66].

2.5. Systems Integration

Currently, enterprises use a lot of IT systems, from operating systems, through ERP systems, to HMI, SCADA, and MES systems. Each of these systems brings significant value and a lot of data. However, operating these systems in a non-integrated manner may contribute to data silos. Data silos are the result of data being stored in such a way that selected data are not available to the entire organization, but only to parts of it (departments, teams, or individual employees). This may be the reason for the ineffective use of data, despite its significant amount. The answer to this issue is the so-called single source of knowledge (SSoT, Single Source of Truth), i.e., one place where data from the entire plant is aggregated. This is possible thanks to the integration of systems in the enterprise, which enables the exchange of data between systems, devices, processes, and people [67,68].

2.6. Simulation

In Industry 4.0, simulation plays a very important role. The task of computer simulation is to virtually imitate the behavior of a real model [69]. Combining a real model with a virtual counterpart offers many possibilities. Many solutions come to the rescue, such as digital twin (DT), DSS (decision support system), advanced scheduling, and 3D design.
The DT concept is not a new method. It appeared about 20 years ago [70], although it is described in the literature as “new solution elements to enable ongoing digital monitoring and active functional improvement of interconnected products, devices, and machines” [71]. It enables you to connect a model of a product, a machine, a production line, or even an entire factory with real data in real-time, combining three layers: a 3D model, a mathematical model, and a real object. DT is considered a helpful and powerful tool in many industries [72,73,74,75], providing essential information for advanced analysis and systems [76]. There has been a noticeable increase in interest and development of digital twins and applications in various sectors [77]. According to H.G. Liliendahl [78], DT technology is before the peak of inflated expectations on the noise curve. The development of DTs depends primarily on huge amounts of data, which confirms its dependence on IoT [79].
In the literature on the subject, DTs are presented as a solution that facilitates, among others: improving the efficiency of systems and networks and optimizing their operation thanks to the proactive detection of system failures, which undeniably affects the interest of stakeholders from the energy sector, which is increasing in value [72]. “Recently, digital twins have been seen as a stepping stone toward the goal of digitalizing the electrical grid” [80], where they support energy management systems in making accurate decisions regarding, e.g., the power/energy share of each energy source to ensure the quality of the final product and meet the electricity demand [81,82].
Another solution that fits into Industry 4.0 simulation solutions is the DSS system, also called the control room system [83]. Such solutions support making accurate decisions in real-time by collecting, analyzing, observing, and grouping data from production, business systems, and installations in real-time and presenting them in appropriate contexts. Recently, there has been increased demand for clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) [84,85]. They are designed to help doctors make decisions about individual patients, preventing medical errors. The purpose of their introduction, apart from avoiding errors, is primarily to improve patient safety and the quality of care [86].
Advanced scheduling is used in many enterprises today. Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms are increasingly used in production planning systems, which are dynamic and require large amounts of data [87]. Scheduling is one of the decision-making processes that is part of Industry 4.0 [88], mainly because the data required to solve a given decision-making problem are very often burdened with uncertainty and changes over time [89]. Therefore, real-time information management is considered extremely important in Industry 4.0-based planning [88,90,91]. Integrating multiple data and information in real-time is expensive and the capital involved in its implementation is high [92].
In turn, BIM (Building Information Modeling) design is part of 3D design solutions. It enables the 3D design of entire factories and buildings, taking into account various installations, such as installations responsible for the supply of utilities, heating, or electricity consumption, and enables the identification of threats and the optimization of building operating costs [93,94,95,96,97,98,99].
These technologies are strongly supported by cybersecurity, augmented reality, and additive manufacturing [100,101,102].

2.7. Cybersecurity

Operational technology (OT) systems are used to control industrial infrastructure, in industrial production, communications and transport, defense, and facilities providing public services. They are crucial to public and economic security [103].
Due to the development of OT (operational technology) industrial networks and the collection of large amounts of production data, machines and entire production processes are exposed to hacker attacks. They may result in data loss, production downtime, damage to equipment or other resources, and even a threat to people’s safety and lives. The research described by Fortinet (2019) shows that almost all surveyed enterprises (97%) recognize the challenges associated with ensuring protection in connected IT and OT environments [104]. Therefore, a very important aspect in the era of digital transformation is attention to cybersecurity, not only in the area of IT networks but also in OT networks [105].

2.8. Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR and AR)

Virtual Reality is an information technology that is defined as a 3D image that imitates real space/object or is a vision of a fictional world. This technology is currently being greatly developed [106], mainly due to its use in entertainment, e.g., games or performances [107,108]. Recently, it has increasingly entered industry and the world of science. It is used in research [109,110], product design, and modeling (visualization for virtual prototyping) [111,112], or as an educational tool for employee training [113,114,115,116,117]. The latter application, in particular, reveals the enormous potential of VR as it enables the involvement of all the user’s senses, saving time and costs. This technology is also becoming a valuable solution in industrial plants. Using smart glasses and VR/AR headsets facilitates the broadly understood servicing and operation of machines and devices [35].

2.9. Additive Manufacturing

One of the techniques used for additive manufacturing (AM) is 3D printing [118]. This technology is becoming more and more popular and is developing very dynamically nowadays. Three-dimensional printing is a technology that, in cooperation with a computer model, enables the production of complex geometries and a wide range of structures based on three-dimensional (3D) model data. According to [119], the main advantages of additive manufacturing (AM) include design freedom, rapid prototyping, the ability to produce complex structures, and waste minimization, as well as mass personalization and material cost reduction. This enables the use of AM in biomedicine, buildings and protective structures, and aviation.

3. Materials and Methods

The main aim of the study was to analyze and assess the technological maturity of Polish enterprises in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution in 2019–2021. The main goal was achieved as part of the document analysis research undertaken by the authors involving selected reports presenting, from various perspectives, the state of digitization of companies. The authors made a preliminary selection of reports, and identification and scientific interpretation of interesting parameters enabled the assessment of the digital maturity of Polish companies.
The analysis of the degree of digitization of enterprises was carried out in several stages. Stage I was a review of the available reports containing information on digitalization in Poland. While reviewing, the authors selected important areas and contents of the reports (Stage II) and then analyzed them. The adopted time range covers three years: 2019–2021 (Stage III). The three-year analysis period, covering the year before the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the year after its outbreak, enabled the assessment of the potential impact of the pandemic on the digitization of companies. The last stage was a discussion and drawing of conclusions from the analyses performed (Stage IV). For a more complete illustration of the research process, the general stages are presented in Figure 1.
Stage I was carried out based on the following reports (Figure 2), for which symbolic markings are given in brackets:
  • Report prepared by S&T (one of the largest IT integrators in Central and Eastern Europe) entitled “Technological maturity of Polish companies in 2019” (TMofPC) [120];
  • Report prepared by Siemens entitled “Digi Index 2021” (DI) [121];
  • Report prepared by the European Commission entitled “Digital Economy and Society Index for 2021” (DESI) [122].
Figure 2. The time frame of the analyzed reports on the digitization of enterprises in Poland. Own study.
Figure 2. The time frame of the analyzed reports on the digitization of enterprises in Poland. Own study.
Sustainability 16 05718 g002
The analysis of the above-mentioned reports on the level of digitization allowed for the following:
  • Assessment of the current level of digitization of Polish enterprises;
  • Identification of important areas which, in the light of the research, may play a key role in the analysis and assessment of the level of digitization of the enterprise;
  • Identification of the key challenges of enterprises in the context of formulating and implementing company development strategies.
A brief description of the reports and the data contained therein is presented in Table 1.
The table presents a list of selected report elements that were analyzed. In particular, they include the name of the report, the author of the report (the entity that developed a given report), the types of sectors in which the analyzed enterprises operate, the number of analyzed enterprises, and selected key topics of each report. Qualitative and comparable methods were used in the reports’ analysis.
The reports were selected for analysis because they were developed based on research conducted by various institutions, present different approaches concerning various industries, and provide an opportunity for a comprehensive, holistic look at the level of digitization of enterprises. The different layout of data presentation makes in-depth analysis difficult, but not impossible. This diversity is also an added value because it illustrates how differently distributed analysis emphases ultimately come down to the assessment of certain standard facts and trends. Diversity allows for a broader view of the level of digitalization of Polish enterprises in various industries, and in the context of changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. All this allows us to assume that such a comprehensive and cross-sectional analysis of reports will bring interesting conclusions and research conclusions. The comparative analysis focused on content that, often indirectly and not identically named, related to the same general parameter.

4. Assessment of the State of Digitization of Polish Enterprises in 2019–2021—Results

The analysis of the reports allowed, on the one hand, to assess changes in the degree of digitization of Polish enterprises over recent years, and on the other hand, it made it possible to show Poland against the European average in terms of digitization. The study also made it possible to indicate areas worth paying attention to when analyzing the level of digitization of an enterprise. The conclusions from the analysis also serve to identify key parameters and challenges related to digitalization, which should be included in the redefined or formulated development strategies of companies.

4.1. Technological Maturity of Polish Companies

The S&T report [120] was prepared based on a survey conducted in 2019 among IT managers and representatives of business departments of SME sector companies. It aimed to examine the knowledge and understanding of basic concepts of digital transformation. A total of 251 representatives of various enterprises took part in the study.
The study results showed the following (Figure 3):
  • Over 60% of respondents associate digital transformation with changing the company’s business model to fully use the potential of the implemented technological solutions;
  • Over 45% of respondents indicated that, in their opinion, digital transformation involves the automation and integration of production processes and the implementation of new tools;
  • 25% of survey participants indicated that digital transformation is associated with new technological possibilities in the area of sales-related processes and the area of marketing activities;
  • Over 13% link digital transformation with increasing employee efficiency and effectiveness and also associate it with the creation of new, digital jobs;
  • 2% of respondents indicated that they did not know the concept of digital transformation.
Figure 3. Knowledge about digitization in Polish enterprises. Source: Own study based on [120].
Figure 3. Knowledge about digitization in Polish enterprises. Source: Own study based on [120].
Sustainability 16 05718 g003
The vast majority of respondents associate transformation with process automation and new technological solutions. At the same time, among the most important advantages of changes introduced in companies and which result from the implementation of IT solutions, the following were indicated (Figure 4a): the ability to make favorable decisions thanks to a larger amount of data (70%) and improvement of business processes thanks to increasing their flexibility and efficiency (70%). Over 40% emphasized that an important benefit is the ability to integrate enterprise systems with customer systems, which improves their communication and strengthens relationships. About 20% of respondents emphasized that digital transformation contributes to the creation of an attractive work environment, which increases the chances of acquiring new customers and expands the company’s portfolio.
However, they considered the following to be disadvantages and obstacles to the introduction of digitization of enterprises (Figure 4b): lack of employees with appropriate skills for solutions related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution (over 50%); investment costs, high costs of maintaining modern tools, and difficulties in estimating the effects, which are the result of digital transformation (over 40%); the reluctance of decision-makers in the company to adopt technological innovations and the lack of solutions tailored to the specificity of a given enterprise (over 20%); negative experiences in previous implementations of new technologies (12%); and fear of job cuts (6%).
Interestingly, the greatest obstacle to digital transformation is the lack of appropriate employee skills. The mentality of employees and their knowledge and competencies are the greatest barriers to digitalization. The report shows the following:
  • According to 30% of respondents, digitalization processes require employees to acquire new competencies, but the speed of changes makes it impossible for employees to keep up with trends and acquire appropriate competencies;
  • 20% of people believe that an obstacle to the implementation of digital solutions is the fact that employees should have interdisciplinary skills;
  • Over 10% of respondents believe that the lack of soft skills among technical employees does not help in the implementation of digitalization;
  • 20% of people do not notice obstacles related to human resources.
The second significant disadvantage is investment costs are too high and digitization activities are considered expensive. On the one hand, enterprises want to keep up with changes; on the other hand, budgets for digitalization projects are problematic. Half of the respondents indicated that they implement projects in this field on an ad hoc basis, depending on needs. Such projects must be planned well in advance, at least a year, which is because they do not have sufficient funds for planned technological investments and plan to implement solutions gradually. Only one-third of respondents have the appropriate amount of funds to implement planned investments, and as many as 11% cannot implement solutions at all due to the lack of the necessary financial resources.
Based on the report’s data, it is possible to identify areas of enterprise activity that, in the opinion of respondents, should be digitized shortly. Over 31% of surveyed enterprise representatives indicated areas related to finance. Approximately 30% of respondents plan to automate and digitize production processes, 20% to computerize processes related to customer service or human resources management, and 15% to computerize areas related to marketing.
An interesting element of the report is the use of cloud solutions by individual enterprises, as well as the cybersecurity strategy that protects against attacks and ensures continuous operation of the company. Every fourth person surveyed would choose the traditional model, i.e., purchasing a proprietary license, and 13% would choose a solution operating fully in the cloud. A hybrid model in various configurations, e.g., cloud license and owned infrastructure, or the reverse situation, was indicated by 41% of companies, while 21% have no preferences in the use of cloud solutions.
When it comes to cybersecurity
  • 75% of surveyed companies already have a comprehensive strategy in this area;
  • 13% do not currently have a strategy but plan to create one;
  • 11% do not have a strategy, but IT security has been implemented in some areas;
  • 1% of respondents do not plan to create a cybersecurity strategy.

4.2. Digi Index 2021 Report

The second Digi Index report by Siemens [121] contains information on the actual level of digitization of Polish enterprises. The study covered 150 companies from the following sectors: machinery (30 companies), automotive (30 companies), food (60 companies), and chemical and pharmaceutical (30 companies). The analysis of the degree of digitization of enterprises covered six areas: strategic planning, organization and administration, system integration, production and operational activities, data management, and the use of digital processes (Table 2).
The study used a scale where
  • A result <2.0 meant a very low digitization rate;
  • A result (2.5–3.0) meant an average result, which indicates that the company has implemented certain digital solutions;
  • A result >3.6 meant that the company was a leader in digitalization.
The level of the digitization index for the six studied areas is shown in Figure 5.
In light of the conducted research, it can be seen that enterprises obtained an average result in only two areas (fourth and fifth), which means that they have already created the basis for digitalization and are in the process of implementing new solutions. The strongest area is the area related to data management; its average score is 2.9. The second-best-rated area is production and operations, with a score of 2.3. However, in other areas, the digitization index obtained was very low and did not exceed 2.0. The areas with the lowest scores were organization and administration, with an average score of 1.3, and system integration (1.2). The average result of the level of digitalization of the analyzed 150 Polish enterprises in 2021 was only 1.8, which means that it is a very low result.
In the area of industries, the chemical and pharmaceutical industry achieved the best level of digitalization, achieving an advancement level of 2.0; enterprises from this sector accounted for 20% of the surveyed companies. The remaining industries achieved a lower result of 1.7 (Figure 6).
The low level of the digitization rate may result from the fact that over 40% of the surveyed enterprises do not have, or plan in their budget, funds for the implementation of innovative solutions. Only 22% of the companies that participated in the study had a budget for this type of investment. The lack of financial resources results in the lack of a strategy and preparation of a strategic road map. More than 28% of enterprises currently have no plans for a development strategy towards digital transformation. A total of 25% of the surveyed enterprises are just considering preparing a plan, over 20% are in the process of preparing such a plan, and only 19% have a detailed strategic innovation plan.
Due to the lack of opportunities to finance innovation, companies also have problems with financing employee development in the area of digitalization. Development is necessary because it affects the employee’s commitment, motivation, and quality of the tasks performed. According to the report, over 50% of the analyzed enterprises do not have an employee development plan in this area. More than 14% of companies consider preparing such a plan, and more than 27% of companies have such a plan prepared or one that exists only for selected employees. Only 5% of companies have a development plan for all employees in their plant.
It is also worth paying attention to what IT systems are used in Polish companies and to what extent (Figure 7). The systems used to support digitalization include the following:
  • ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems for production management—implemented by 38% of companies;
  • WMS-class systems, warehouse management software—implemented by over 18% of companies;
  • SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) systems—used by over 15% of companies;
  • cloud solutions—used by only 10% of companies;
  • MES (Manufacturing Execution System)—used by only 9% of enterprises;
  • APS (Advanced planning and scheduling) systems and industrial control systems are used by only 6% of the surveyed companies;
  • over 22% of respondents do not have any of the above-mentioned production and enterprise management systems.
Figure 7. IT systems used in Polish companies involved in the production of goods. Source: Own study based on [121].
Figure 7. IT systems used in Polish companies involved in the production of goods. Source: Own study based on [121].
Sustainability 16 05718 g007
More than 7% of enterprises do not have integrated systems at all; 7% of enterprises have systems that are over 80% integrated. Other companies have systems that are only partially integrated and require manual operation.
Automation and standardization of production processes are very important because they contribute to increasing efficiency, reducing costs, and improving quality. In almost 30% of the surveyed enterprises, there is little automation, which means that production is carried out manually. Only 6% of the companies that participated in the study admitted that the processes within their company are mostly automated (over 80%). In other cases, automation is implemented only for selected processes.
In the case of standardization, the situation seems to be better; over 70% of enterprises have implemented uniform standards in at least one of their production plants. More than 20% do not have uniform standards. In the case of security, almost 50% of respondents have standard network security, and almost 30% of surveyed enterprises have a modern, full security system. Unfortunately, 10% of enterprises do not have digital security.
An important element in production plants is the method of data management, the appropriate analysis of which has a significant impact on the functioning of the enterprise and the implementation of processes. More than 50% of enterprises are aware of how important it is to collect data from all processes. Over 12% of companies collect data only for critical processes. In other cases, data are collected from selective processes. Over 37% of surveyed companies use the collected data to make full use of it, and are thus able to prevent failures, using machine learning, among other methods, to predict e.g., energy consumption. Over 40% of respondents use the collected data for ongoing analyses, such as identifying problems. A total of 4% of enterprises do not intend to collect and use data, and 3% do not currently use data to improve processes, but plan to implement such activities.
The last area that may reflect the level of digitization of enterprises is activities related to digital simulations and the use of cloud computing in practice. More than 50% of enterprises do not intend to use cloud technologies. Over 7% of surveyed companies plan to start using such software within the next two years. Over 9% of companies use cloud solutions daily. In other cases, this solution is used in certain situations.
In the case of using virtual simulations, respondents were divided into categories: discrete production and continuous production. In the case of enterprises that deal with discrete and continuous production, over 50% of them do not use virtual simulation technologies. In the area of continuous production, over 6% of enterprises use these technologies in all activities. In the case of discrete production, it is over 13% of companies. In other cases, these technologies are used for, among others, one action.
Analyzing the Siemens Digi Index 2021 report, it can be seen that in larger companies (200–249 employees), digitalization is much more advanced than in the case of smaller companies. Such enterprises have a planned budget, strategy, and designated person responsible for digitization processes. They indicate automation at a minimum level of 60%.
The survey participants also answered questions regarding issues related to the planned digitalization budget for the next 12 months. The answers are shown in Figure 8.
Over 60% of enterprises intend to maintain the budget for digitization of production at the same level as currently; in the case of 13% of enterprises, such a budget will be increased; 2% of enterprises intend to reduce the budget; and over 24% of respondents refused to answer or did not have such information. The average percentage of company profits allocated to digitalization is 9.2%.
The main obstacles to digitalization include the following:
  • Lack of financial support (34%);
  • Lack of knowledge on how to develop a plan, strategy, and business goals (16%);
  • Difficulties with integrating systems from different suppliers (16%);
  • Lack of knowledge regarding the use of collected data (16%).
The report also indicates the competitive advantages of companies that invest in digitalization (Figure 9). The most important were higher efficiency (35.3%), cost reduction (34%), and process optimization (27.3%).
The report also points to the problems of enterprises during the pandemic. These include lockdowns, employee quarantines, and problems with deliveries from abroad. On the other hand, data indicate that the pandemic has contributed to an increase in the number of companies recognizing the merits of digitalization and declaring investment in digitalization.

4.3. Digital Economy and Society Index 2021

The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI Report) [122] is an annual document prepared by the European Commission to present member countries’ progress to date in terms of digitalization. The European Commission analyzes the level of digital advancement of countries in four areas, the so-called four pillars of the Digital Compass:
  • Human capital;
  • Communication;
  • Integration of digital technology;
  • Digital public services.
According to the European Commission report, Poland’s position in the DESI ranking is very low (Figure 10). Poland is currently ranked 25th. The countries ranked ahead of Poland include, among others, CEE countries such as Lithuania (14th place), Latvia (18th place), Czech Republic (19th place), Slovakia (23rd place), and Hungary (24th place). The last places in the DESI ranking, just behind Poland, were taken by Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania.
In terms of human capital, Finland is the leader, in terms of connectivity it is Denmark, and in the remaining two pillars it is both Denmark and Finland. Compared to the total DESI indicators for the four leading EU countries, namely Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands, Poland’s level is approximately 40% lower. It is worth noting that Poland achieved a result that is comparable to the European average only in terms of the percentage of IT graduates. However, there is still a lack of digitalization specialists in the Polish market.
The coronavirus pandemic has significantly influenced the development of Poland’s digitalization in terms of remote communication. This contributed to the increased demand for efficient equipment, up-to-date software, and good Internet connectivity. Unfortunately, the 5G network is being slowly implemented and used in Poland, which hinders reliable, fast, and secure communications. On the other hand, digital technologies such as cloud computing and AI are gaining popularity in Poland. Currently, 15% of enterprises use cloud technologies, and artificial intelligence solutions are used by 18% of companies in Poland.
The first comparison between Poland and the European Union concerns the “Human capital” category (Figure 11). It can be seen that Poland’s average results are below the European average. The exception is the area related to the percentage of graduates in information and communication fields, as it is a result comparable to the European average. However, despite the results being lower than the European average, it should be noted that these results are not critical. An example is the percentage of enterprises that provide ICT training (18%). The difference in the results of the EU and Poland is 2 percentage points. A significant difference, i.e., 12 percentage points, occurs in the areas of possession of basic digital skills in the age group from 16 to 74 years (Poland—44%, EU—56%).
In the case of the “Connectivity” category, Poland ranks 21st. In Figure 12 it can be seen that in several cases the average result obtained by Poland is higher than the European average. This proves that Poland has made significant progress in this area. An example of the above statement is the percentage of households that use high-speed broadband Internet. In this area, Poland’s average result is 6 percentage points higher than the European average. Moreover, the percentage of 4G network coverage in populated areas in Poland is higher than the European average. However, it should be noted that while in the EU as many as 71% of people use mobile broadband services, in Poland only 58% use them. An area for improvement in Poland is to expand the coverage of the 5G network; currently only 10% of populated areas are covered by such coverage. The European average in this area is 14%.
In the case of the “Integration of digital technology” category (Figure 13), Poland ranks 24th among the EU Member States. Despite the result being below the European average, it can be noted that Poland has made steps towards the development of digital transformation technologies. However, further action is very important to make even greater use of digital opportunities. An example of the above statement is the fact that 52% of enterprises from the SME sector use digital technologies at least to a basic extent. In the case of the European average, it is 60%.
Less than 20% of enterprises in Poland use artificial intelligence technologies, cloud capabilities, or electronic invoices. Only 8% use big data. About 30% of enterprises in Poland exchange information electronically. It should be noted, however, that even though digital technologies are not currently used on a large scale, companies are aware of their impact on the environment and sustainable development. Therefore, 60% of enterprises in Poland that achieved a medium or high level of the indicator of the use of digital solutions (the average EU result is 66%) operate pro-ecologically using ICT technologies.
In the “Digital public services” category (Figure 14), Poland is in 22nd place in the ranking. In most areas, average RP scores are lower than the European average. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more entities started using electronic services. An example of this is Profil Zaufany, where compared to 2019, the number of accounts opened was doubled. The area of open data enjoys a very good result. In 2020, Poland became a country that set trends in the area of advancement in the implementation of open data policy. An open data policy involves collecting data that can be reused. An example of such an action is the creation of the “CzyNa Czas” application, which enables monitoring and locating public transport in real-time. The government is currently working on developing these activities. The pandemic also had a positive impact on the improvement of medical centers, enabling teleconsultations, writing electronic prescriptions, etc., which significantly improved the processes related to visits to the doctor and the processing of necessary formalities. Due to the increase in cyberattacks, it is very important that Poland focuses on securing IT systems in public entities and supports enterprises in this regard.

5. Discussion

The area of digital transformation is very demanding. The analysis of the reports showed that Polish enterprises are aware of what digital transformation is and what the process of its implementation involves. Some of them use available technological solutions at an advanced level, such as process automation, data collection, integration of systems within the enterprise, and the use of artificial intelligence algorithms, e.g., to predict media consumption. It often happens that the larger the company, the more technologically advanced it is, as shown by the Siemens Digi Index 2021 report. Digitization in large enterprises is much more advanced than in the case of smaller companies. The former have a well-thought-out digitalization strategy and indicate automation at a minimum level of 60%. Despite this, a minority of 40% of the surveyed industrial enterprises do not have, or plan in their budget, funds for the implementation of innovative solutions. It is satisfactory that over 50% of enterprises are aware of how important it is to collect data from all processes. When it comes to the digitization index for sectors, the chemical and pharmaceutical industries achieved the best level of digitization. In the case of SMEs and the IT sector, presented by the Technological Maturity of Polish Companies report, 75% of surveyed companies already have a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy and they use cloud solutions. It is clear that Polish enterprises are responding to the challenges of digitalization, and that many of them are planning automation and digitization of processes, and planning changes in the budget related to expenditure on innovations in this area.
Many companies, even though they are not currently at an advanced level of using digital technologies, are aware that Industry 4.0 solutions are an opportunity for them to increase their competitiveness and improve processes in the company. Therefore, such enterprises improve their operations whenever possible by implementing appropriate IT systems, collecting data, etc. Moreover, they plan budgets for further investments and training for their employees.
It is worth noting that although Poland’s level of technological advancement is still not satisfactory, it has improved significantly over the last two years. The coronavirus pandemic had a significant impact on the digital development of enterprises and public institutions, which forced remote operations and indicated that random causes such as quarantine or supply problems may significantly hamper production. This problem most affected production companies that did not have automated production lines and processes were performed manually. Despite the negative events of the coronavirus pandemic, it contributed to positive changes.
Unfortunately, many enterprises, especially from the SME sector, are still not fully aware of the importance of implementing Industry 4.0 solutions. The basic barrier indicated by plants being skeptical about technological changes is the cost of investment and maintenance. Therefore, organizations involved in creating road maps and implementing digital solutions must educate the market, pointing out the benefits that the company can obtain after appropriate implementation. This may be, for example, an increase in the company’s efficiency or an increase in appropriate KPIs, as well as a reduction in material costs or energy consumption. An additional argument may be the estimated ROI coefficient, which tells us how long it will take for the planned investment to pay off. Additional assistance is provided by subsidies (offered by the state and the EU), which are intended to support enterprises in their development. However, a more difficult barrier is the mentality of employees and the lack of appropriate competencies. Therefore, it is important to involve all employees in the change process at the initial stage of investment planning so that they are aware that a good change will not take away their jobs but may add value to the duties performed by them. Thanks to this, after understanding the idea and purpose of the change, employees will help and engage in the company’s transformation process without hindering it.
It is also very important to support employees in acquiring new, necessary competencies. Therefore, a plan for their development is extremely important. Another obstacle that hinders the path toward the Factory of the Future is the lack of knowledge of enterprises on how to start implementing digital solutions. In this area, the state and supporting organizations play an important role in reaching such units with the necessary information.

6. Conclusions

To conclude the analysis, it should be stated that the level of digitization of Polish enterprises has recently increased to a higher level, which was forced by the pandemic. However, companies still have a lot of work to do to become Factory 4.0. It should be noted that most enterprises are aware of the essence of digitalization, which is dictated not only by technological reasons, but mainly by financial and social ones. Some of them have implemented appropriate systems or planned budgets for development towards digital transformation. However, there are still cases in which production plants resist modern solutions. This is mainly because there is little benefit from using robots if labor is cheap. This socio-economic aspect is one of the factors affecting digitalization. This may be due to fear of losing a job or having to acquire new skills. Other reasons are not knowing how to start the path toward Industry 4.0 or financial issues. Therefore, education regarding the essence of the solutions of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is very important, so that some plants do not go bankrupt and do not lose their competitiveness.
The main findings of our analysis regarding the assessment of the current level of digitization of Polish enterprises are as follows:
  • The digitization of Polish industry has reached a higher level;
  • 40% of companies ensure that they will increase their budget for digitization;
  • The industry is increasingly aware of the benefits of digital transformation;
  • Most companies are open and ready to digitize their plant;
  • There are concerns about employee competencies and budgets.
The key near-term challenges for enterprises in the context of digitalization will be primarily the search for employees with appropriate competencies. Society in Poland is aging, which translates into a lack of specific knowledge and appropriate skills among older workers in today’s labor market, as well as the formulation and implementation of company development strategies, which will affect changes in the current business models of Polish enterprises.
It is worth noting that medium and large companies from different sectors participated in the study. This may be a limitation and an imperfection of the study. Therefore, comparative analysis may affect the results of the study, which indicate the maturity and readiness of companies for digitalization. In the case of an analysis of small enterprises, the situation would probably be slightly different, mainly in terms of financial capabilities and human resources. Since our analysis was based only on Polish SMEs, research on assessing the level of digitalization should certainly be extended to other geographical areas. It would be interesting to compare the level of digitization in Slovak enterprises with Polish ones, as well as what their digitization looks like compared to selected European countries. That could be the direction of our future research, in addition to the development of cybersecurity (information security), which is one of the most important topics in Industry 4.0. Answering the question asked at the beginning of the article about whether Polish enterprises have responded to the challenges of digitalization, it can be safely said that the awareness of the need for digital transformation among Polish companies has increased. Digital transformation is no longer a way to maintain a competitive advantage but has become a factor determining whether a given company will stay in the market.
Although Polish companies are afraid of transformation, they also understand that it is related to sustainable development in various areas and this challenge must be met. They do it in different areas and with different levels of intensity.
The combination of digital transformation and sustainability, which seem to have little in common, creates enormous potential for change and synergy. Reorganizing enterprises, optimizing processes, and conquering new markets using the opportunities offered by digitalization are the basis for changing thinking and acting in the spirit of sustainable development. The use of sustainable solutions in the form of innovative technologies offered by Industry 4.0 improves the results in the field of sustainable development of Polish SMEs. Their use affects the following, in particular:
  • Increasing the efficiency of enterprises, increasing appropriate key performance indicators, and reducing the costs of materials and energy consumption (economic aspect);
  • Reducing material consumption and energy consumption (environmental aspect);
  • Increasing the number of suitably qualified employees (supporting employees in acquiring new, necessary competencies), creating new, digital jobs, which translates into greater chances of acquiring new customers, and expanding the company’s portfolio (social aspect).
As research has shown, many Industry 4.0 technologies used by Polish SMEs, such as automation and integration of production processes, and the ability to make favorable decisions thanks to a larger amount of data, are related to the sustainable development of production. However, sustainable operations in the supply chain can be implemented thanks to, for example, the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to predict media consumption, new technological possibilities in the area of sales-related processes and marketing activities, integration of enterprise systems with customer systems (improving communication and strengthening relationships), computerization of processes and areas related to customer service, human resources management, and marketing.
According to the above, it can be said that the introduction of digitalization into various aspects of a company’s business operations supports and contributes to improving results in the field of sustainable development, from each of the economic, environmental, and social points of view.
Despite the indicated imperfections, this study provides valuable information for companies wishing to expand their activities in the area of digitization. It could also be used by policymakers aiming to promote digitalization. Moreover, this research can be useful for defining a company’s digital strategy and understanding what resources and capabilities are necessary for a company to engage in the digital transformation process. The results of the comparative analysis can also be used by universities to reorganize their study programs in such a way as to better prepare young employees to enter the labor market.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.K. and M.R.; methodology, D.K. and M.R.; software, D.K., M.R. and L.D.; validation, D.K., M.R. and L.D.; formal analysis, D.K. and M.R.; investigation, D.K.; resources, M.R.; data curation, D.K. and M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, D.K. and M.R.; writing—review and editing, D.K., M.R. and L.D.; visualization, D.K. and L.D.; supervision, D.K.; project administration, D.K.; funding acquisition, D.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was prepared as part of AGH University of Krakow, scientific subsidy under number: 16/16.200.396.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dallocchio, M.; Lambri, M.; Sironi, E.; Teti, E. The Role of Digitalization in Cross-Border E-Commerce Performance of Italian SMEs. Sustainability 2024, 16, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bresciani, S.; Ferraris, A.; Giudice, M. The management of organizational ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 136, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhironkin, S.; Dotsenko, E. Review of Transition from Mining 4.0 to 5.0 in Fossil Energy Sources Production. Energies 2023, 16, 5794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. OECD. Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2018: Preparing for the Future of Work; Job Creation and Local Economic Development; OECD: Paris, France, 2018; ISBN 978-92-64-30533-5. [Google Scholar]
  5. ADP. Workforce View in Europe 2018; The Workforce View 2018; International Competitiveness in the Context of the Development of Industry 4.0; ADP: Roseland, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wydanie, I. Polska: Raport o konkurencyjności; Kowalski, A.M., Weresa, M.A., Eds.; Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH, Szkoła Główna Handlowa: Warszawa, Poland, 2019; ISBN 978-83-8030-314-0. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ratnasingam, J.; Lee, Y.Y.; Azim, A.A.A.; Halis, R.; Liat, L.C.; Khoo, A.; Daud, M.M.M.; Senin, A.L.; Ab Latib, H.; Bueno, M.V. Assessing the Awareness and Readiness of the Malaysian Furniture Industry for Industry 4.0. Bioresources 2020, 15, 4866–4885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liao, Y.; Deschamps, F.; de Loures, E.F.R.; Ramos, L.F.P. Past, Present and Future of Industry 4.0-a Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda Proposal. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 3609–3629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sony, M. Pros and Cons of Implementing Industry 4.0 for the Organizations: A Review and Synthesis of Evidence. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2020, 8, 244–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ejsmont, K. The Impact of Industry 4.0 on Employees—Insights from Australia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Domaracká, L.; Seňová, A.; Kowal, D. Evaluation of Eco-Innovation and Green Economy in EU Countries. Energies 2023, 16, 962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wittbrodt, P.; Łapunka, I. Industry 4.0—A Challenge for Modern Production Companies. Available online: http://ptzp.org.pl/files/konferencje/kzz/artyk_pdf_2017/T2/t2_793.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  13. Türkeș, M.C.; Oncioiu, I.; Aslam, H.D.; Marin-Pantelescu, A.; Topor, D.I.; Căpușneanu, S. Drivers and Barriers in Using Industry 4.0: A Perspective of SMEs in Romania. Processes 2019, 7, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kowal, B.; Włodarz, D.; Brzychczy, E.; Klepka, A. Analysis of Employees’ Competencies in the Context of Industry 4.0. Energies 2022, 15, 7142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sąsiadek, M.; Basl, J. Awareness and the level of implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept in selected Polish and Czech enterprises. In Innowacje w Zarządzaniu i Inżynierii Produkcji; Oficyna Wydawnicza Polskiego Towarzystwa Zarządzania Produkcją: Opole, Poland, 2018; Volume II, pp. 189–198. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hecklau, F.; Galeitzke, M.; Flachs, S.; Kohl, H. Holistic Approach for Human Resource Management in Industry 4.0. Procedia Cirp 2016, 54, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fitsilis, P.; Tsoutsa, P.; Gerogiannis, V. Industry 4.0: Required Personnel Competences. Industry 4.0 2018, 3, 130–133. [Google Scholar]
  18. Grzelczak, A.; Kosacka, M.; Werner-Lewandowska, K. Employees Competences for Industry 4.0 in Poland–Preliminary Research Results. In DEStech Transactions on Engineering and Technology Research; DEStech Publications Inc.: Lancaster, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 130–144. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ślusarczyk, B. Industry 4.0: Are We Ready? Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 17, 232–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Antonioli, D.; Mancinelli, S.; Mazzanti, M. Is environmental innovation embedded within high-performance organisational changes? The role of human resource management and complementarity in green business strategies. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 975–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ghobakhloo, M. Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kowal, B.; Domaracká, L.; Tobór-Osadnik, K. Innovative activity of companies in the raw material Industry on the example of Poland and Slovakia—Selected aspects. J. Pol. Miner. Eng. Soc. 2020, 2, 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  23. Na Czym Polega Idea Przemysłu 4.0? Available online: https://www.numo.pl/artykul/na-czym-polega-idea-przemyslu-4-0-127104 (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  24. Kagermann, H. Change Through Digitization—Value Creation in the Age of Industry 4.0. In Management of Permanent Change; Albach, H., Meffert, H., Pinkwart, A., Reichwald, R., Eds.; Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2015; pp. 23–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lasi, H.; Fettke, P.; Kemper, H.-G.; Feld, T.; Hoffmann, M. Industry 4.0. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2014, 6, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schuh, G.; Anderl, R.; Gausemeier, J.; ten Hompel, M.; Wahlster, W. Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index. Managing the Digital Transformation of Companies (Acatech Study); Herbert Utz Verlag: Munich, Germany, 2017; Available online: https://en.acatech.de/publication/industrie-4-0-maturity-indexmanaging-the-digital-transformation-of-companies/ (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  27. Richnák, P.; Čambalíková, A. Using Industry 4.0 concept in Slovak chemical industry. Industry 4.0 2021, 6, 106–109. Available online: https://stumejournals.com/journals/i4/2021/3/106.full.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  28. Bai, C.; Dallasega, P.; Orzes, G.; Sarkis, J. Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: A sustainability perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 229, 107776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wickens, C.D.; Hollands, J.G.; Banbury, S.; Parasuraman, R. Engineering Psychology & Human Performance; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  30. Czyżewski, A.; Grzyb, A.; Matuszczak, A.; Michałowska, M. Factors for Bioeconomy Development in EU Countries with Different Overall Levels of Economic Development. Energies 2021, 14, 3182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Urciuoli, L.; Hintsa, J.; Ahokas, J. Drivers and barriers affecting usage of e-Customs—A global survey with customs administrations using multivariate analysis techniques. Gov. Inf. Q. 2013, 30, 473–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ligarski, M.J.; Rożałowska, B.; Kalinowski, K. A Study of the Human Factor in Industry 4.0 Based on the Automotive Industry. Energies 2021, 14, 6833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. The Impact of the IIoT on the Global Connectivity Market. Available online: https://teltonikanetworks.com/pl/resources/articles-archive/the-impact-of-the-iiot-on-the-global-connectivity-market/ (accessed on 22 January 2024).
  34. Internet of Things (IoT) czym Jest Internet Rzeczy w Przemyśle? Available online: https://www.dsr.com.pl/internet-ofthings-iot-czym-jest-internet-rzeczy-w-przemysle/ (accessed on 22 January 2024).
  35. Bartkiewicz, W.; Czerwonka, P.; Pamuła, A. Współczesne Narzędzia Cyfryzacji Organizacji; Uniwersytet Łódzki: Łódź, Poland, 2020; pp. 34–35. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mendoza-Pitti, L.; Calderon-Gomez, H.; Vargas-Lombardo, M.; Gomez-Pulido, J.M.; Castillo-Sequera, J.L. Towards a Service-Oriented Architecture for the Energy Efficiency of Buildings: A Systematic Review. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 26119–26137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Asghari, P.; Rahmani, A.M.; Javadi, H.H.S. Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Comput. Netw. 2019, 148, 241–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. de Oliveira Cavalcanti, G.; Pimenta, H.C.D. Electric Energy Management in Buildings Based on the Internet of Things: A Systematic Review. Energies 2023, 16, 5753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, D.; Zhong, D.; Souri, A. Energy management solutions in the Internet of Things applications: Technical analysis and new research directions. Cogn. Syst. Res. 2021, 67, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. ISO 8373:2021(en). Robotics—Vocabulary. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:8373:ed-3:v1:en (accessed on 12 June 2023).
  41. International Federation of Robotics (IFR). Available online: https://ifr.org/ (accessed on 24 January 2024).
  42. Robotyzacja-Podstawowe Cele i Zalety. Available online: https://zrobotyzowany.pl/wiedza/3715/robotyzacjapodstawowe-cele-i-zalety (accessed on 24 January 2024).
  43. Bonekamp, L.; Sure, M. Consequences of Industry 4.0 on Human Labour and Work Organisation. J. Bus. Media Psychol. 2015, 6, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hanschek, A.J.; Bouvier, Y.E.; Jesacher, E.; Grbovi´c, P.J. Analysis and Comparison of Power Distribution System Topologies for Low-Voltage DC-DC Automated Guided Vehicle Applications. Energies 2022, 15, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tubis, A.A.; Poturaj, H. Risk Related to AGV Systems—Open-Access Literature Review. Energies 2022, 15, 8910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cramer, M.; Cramer, J.; de Schepper, D.; Aerts, P.; Kellens, K.; Demeester, E. Benchmarking Low-Cost Inertial Measurement Units for Indoor Localisation and Navigation of AGVs. Procedia CIRP 2019, 86, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sperling, M.; Kivelä, T. Concept of a Dual Energy Storage System for Sustainable Energy Supply of Automated Guided Vehicles. Energies 2022, 15, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lyon, T.P.; Michelin, M.; Jongejan, A.; Leahy, T. Is “Smart Charging” Policy for Electric Vehicles Worthwhile? Energy Policy 2012, 41, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schmidt, J.; Meyer-Barlag, C.; Eisel, M.; Kolbe, L.M.; Appelrath, H.-J. Using Battery-Electric AGVs in Container Terminals—Assessing the Potential and Optimizing the Economic Viability. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2015, 17, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Choe, R.; Kim, J.; Ryu, K.R. Online Preference Learning for Adaptive Dispatching of AGVs in an Automated Container Terminal. Appl. Soft Comput. 2016, 38, 647–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bostelman, R.; Teizer, J.; Ray, S.J.; Agronin, M.; Albanese, D. Methods for Improving Visibility Measurement Standards of Powered Industrial Vehicles. Saf. Sci. 2014, 62, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Duffy, V.G.; Wu, F.F.; Ng, P.P.W. Development of an Internet Virtual Layout System for Improving Workplace Safety. Comput. Ind. 2003, 50, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abdallaoui, S.; Aglzim, E.-H.; Chaibet, A.; Kribèche, A. Thorough Review Analysis of Safe Control of Autonomous Vehicles: Path Planning and Navigation Techniques. Energies 2022, 15, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rubio, F.; Valero, F.; Llopis-Albert, C. A review of mobile robots: Concepts, methods, theoretical framework, and applications. Int. J. Adv. Robot. 2019, 16, 1729881419839596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liao, H.; Michalenko, E.; Vegunta, S.C. Review of Big Data Analytics for Smart Electrical Energy Systems. Energies 2023, 16, 3581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gupta, R.; Chaturvedi, K.T. Adaptive Energy Management of Big Data Analytics in Smart Grids. Energies 2023, 16, 6016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Smith, M.J. Getting value from artificial intelligence in agriculture. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2018, 60, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chan, C.W.; Huang, G.H. Artificial intelligence for management and control of pollution minimisation and mitigation processes. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2003, 16, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Romeral Martínez, L.; Osornio Rios, R.A.; Prieto, M.D. (Eds.) New Trends in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for the Industry 4.0; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/books/9428 (accessed on 17 December 2023).
  60. Olszak, C.M. Tworzenie wartości biznesowej z wykorzystaniem zasobów Big Data. Przegląd Organizacji 2018, 7, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Patsidis, A.; Dyśko, A.; Booth, C.; Rousis, A.O.; Kalliga, P.; Tzelepis, D. Digital Architecture for Monitoring and Operational Analytics of Multi-Vector Microgrids Utilizing Cloud Computing, Advanced Virtualization Techniques, and Data Analytics Methods. Energies 2023, 16, 5908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shi, D.; Zhao, J.; Eze, C.; Wang, Z.; Wang, J.; Lian, Y.; Burke, A.F. Cloud-Based Artificial Intelligence Framework for Battery Management System. Energies 2023, 16, 4403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Control Engineering. Cloud Computing, czyli Małe Zachmurzenie w Produkcji. Available online: https://www.controlengineering.pl/cloud-computing-czyli-male-zachmurzenie-w-produkcji/ (accessed on 24 November 2023).
  64. Poreda, R. Chmura Obliczeniowa w Inteligentnej Fabryce. Available online: https://www.astor.com.pl/biznes-iprodukcja/chmura-obliczeniowa-w-inteligentnej-fabryce/ (accessed on 24 November 2023).
  65. Gibney, E. Europe sets its sights on the cloud: Three large labs hope to create a giant public-private computing network. Nature 2015, 523, 136–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Shi, D.; Zhao, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, H.; Eze, C.; Wang, J.; Lian, Y.; Burke, A.F. Cloud-Based Deep Learning for Co-Estimation of Battery State of Charge and State of Health. Energies 2023, 16, 3855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Przemysł 4.0-Jesteś Gotowy na Zmiany? ASTOR. Available online: https://www.astor.com.pl/industry4/ (accessed on 28 November 2023).
  68. What Are Data Silos and Why Are They a Problem? Available online: https://www.jedox.com/en/blog/what-are-data-silos/ (accessed on 28 November 2023).
  69. White, K.P.; Ingalls, R.G. Introduction to simulation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Huntington Beach, CA, USA, 6–9 December 2015; pp. 1741–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Grieves, M. Digital Twin: Manufacturing Excellence through Virtual Factory Replication. 2014. Available online: https://www.3ds.com/fileadmin/PRODUCTS-SERVICES/DELMIA/PDF/Whitepaper/DELMIA-APRISO-Digital-Twin-Whitepaper.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  71. Stark, R.; Fresemann, C.; Lindow, K. Development and operation of digital twins for technical systems and services. CIRP Ann. 2019, 68, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gourisetti, S.N.G.; Bhadra, S.; Sebastian-Cardenas, D.J.; Touhiduzzaman, M.; Ahmed, O. A Theoretical Open Architecture Framework and Technology Stack for Digital Twins in Energy Sector Applications. Energies 2023, 16, 4853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tao, F.; Zhang, M.; Cheng, J.; Qi, Q. Digital twin workshop: A new paradigm for future workshop. Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 2017, 23, 1–9. Available online: http://www.cims-journal.cn/EN/10.13196/j.cims.2017.01.001 (accessed on 9 May 2023).
  74. Tao, F.; Zhang, H.; Liu, A.; Nee, A.Y.C. Digital Twin in Industry: State-of-the-Art. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019, 15, 2405–2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Howard, D.A.; Ma, Z.; Jørgensen, B.N. Digital twin framework for energy efficient greenhouse industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the Ambient Intelligence–Software and Applications: 11th International Symposium on Ambient Intelligence, L’Aquila, Italy, 17–19 June 2020; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 293–297. [Google Scholar]
  76. Glaessgen, E.; Stargel, D. The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 23–26 April 2012. [Google Scholar]
  77. Willige, A. Digital Twins: What Are They and Why Do They Matter? DAVOS. 2022. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/digital-twin-technology-virtual-model-tech-for-good/ (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  78. Liliendahl, H.G. 4 Concepts in the Gartner Hype Cycle for Digital Business Capabilities That Will Shape MDM. Available online: https://liliendahl.com/2022/02/09/4-concepts-in-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-digital-business-capabilities-that-will-shape-mdm/ (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  79. Minerva, R.; Lee, G.M.; Crespi, N. Digital twin in the IoT context: A survey on technical features, scenarios, and architectural models. Proc. IEEE 2020, 108, 1785–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kumari, N.; Sharma, A.; Tran, B.; Chilamkurti, N.; Alahkoon, D. A Comprehensive Review of Digital Twin Technology for Grid-Connected Microgrid Systems: State of the Art, Potential and Challenges Faced. Energies 2023, 16, 5525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Espín-Sarzosa, D.; Palma-Behnke, R.; Valencia-Arroyave, F. Towards Digital Twins of Small Productive Processes in Microgrids. Energies 2023, 16, 4324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Belik, M.; Rubanenko, O. Implementation of Digital Twin for Increasing Efficiency of Renewable Energy Sources. Energies 2023, 16, 4787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Vicki, L. Saute, Decision Support Systems for Business Intelligence, 2nd ed.; A John Wiley & Sons, Inc., WILEY: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  84. Arnott, D.; Pervan, G. A critical analysis of decision support systems research. In Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems; Willcocks, L.P., Sauer, C., Lacity, M.C., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Musen, M.A.; Middleton, B.; Greenes, R.A. Clinical Decision-Support Systems. In Biomedical Informatics; Shortliffe, E.H., Cimino, J.J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Berner, E.S.; La Lande, T.J. Overview of Clinical Decision Support Systems. In Clinical Decision Support Systems. Health Informatics; Berner, E., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fernandez-Viagas, V.; Framinan, J.M. Exploring the benefits of scheduling with advanced and real-time information integration in Industry 4.0: A computational study. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022, 27, 100281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rossit, D.A.; Tohmé, F.; Frutos, M. Production planning and scheduling in cyber-physical production systems: A review. Int. J. Computer Integr. Manuf. 2019, 32, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Larsen, R.; Pranzo, M. A framework for dynamic rescheduling problems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Fu, Y.; Ding, J.; Wang, H.; Wang, J. Two-objective stochastic flow-shop scheduling with deteriorating and learning effect in industry 4.0-based manufacturing system. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2018, 68, 847–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Parente, M.; Figueira, G.; Amorim, P.; Marques, A. Production scheduling in the context of Industry 4.0: Review and trends. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 5401–5431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dev, N.K.; Shankar, R.; Swami, S. Diffusion of green products in industry 4.0: Reverse logistics issues during design of inventory and production planning system. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 223, 107519. [Google Scholar]
  93. Chen, X.; Li, X.; Tan, S.X.D. Overview of cyber-physical temperature estimation in smart buildings: From modeling to measurements. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), San Francisco, CA, USA, 10–14 April 2016; pp. 251–256. [Google Scholar]
  94. Zhang, X.; Pipattanasomporn, M.; Chen, T.; Rahman, S. An IoT-Based Thermal Model Learning Framework for Smart Buildings. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 7, 518–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bouktif, S.; Fiaz, A.; Ouni, A.; Serhani, M.A. Optimal deep learning LSTM model for electric load forecasting using feature selection and genetic algorithm: Comparison with machine learning approaches. Energies 2018, 11, 1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ghahramani, A.; Galicia, P.; Lehrer, D.; Varghese, Z.; Wang, Z.; Pandit, Y. Artificial Intelligence for Efficient Thermal Comfort Systems: Requirements, Current Applications, and Future Directions. Front. Built Environ. 2020, 6, 109807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kirschstein, X.; Reber, J.; Zeus, R.; Schuster, M.; Bishara, N. Modelling of Floor Heating and Cooling in Residential Districts. Energies 2023, 16, 5850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Truong, N.-S.; Luong, D.L.; Nguyen, Q.T. BIM to BEM Transition for Optimizing Envelope Design Selection to Enhance Building Energy Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness. Energies 2023, 16, 3976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sagawa, D.; Tanaka, K. Machine Learning-Based Estimation of COP and Multi-Objective Optimization of Operation Strategy for Heat Source Considering Electricity Cost and On-Site Consumption of Renewable Energy. Energies 2023, 16, 4893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Pascual, D.G.; Daponte, P.; Kumar, U. Handbook of Industry 4.0 and SMART Systems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; ISBN 0-429-45575-5. [Google Scholar]
  101. Sarı, T.; Güleş, H.K.; Yiğitol, B. Awareness and Readiness of Industry 4.0: The Case of Turkish Manufacturing Industry. Adv. Prod. Eng. Manag. 2020, 15, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Chmielak, J. Bezpieczeństwo systemów przemysłowych w sektorze energetycznym. Fortinet 2019, 4, 25–27. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  103. Raport Fortinet 2019. “Raport z Niezależnego Badania Cyberbezpieczeństwa Systemów SCADA/ICS” (In Polish). Available online: https://files.idg.pl/pdf/cw_custom/fortinet/ot/raport-z-niezaleznego-badania.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2023).
  104. Longo, F.; Nicoletti, L.; Padovano, A. Smart Operators in Industry 4.0: A Human-Centered Approach to Enhance Operators’ Capabilities and Competencies within the New Smart Factory Context. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017, 113, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Deloitte. Industry 4.0 and Cybersecurity. Managing Risk in an Age of Connected Production. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/ (accessed on 18 October 2023).
  106. Wohlgenannt, I.; Simons, A.; Stieglitz, S. Virtual Reality. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2021, 62, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Zyda, M. From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer 2005, 38, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Bonfield, C.A.; Salter, M.; Longmuir, A.; Benson, M.; Adachi, C. Transformation or evolution?: Education 4.0, teaching and learning in the digital age. High. Educ. Pedagog. 2020, 5, 223–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Parmaxi, A. Virtual reality in language learning: A systematic review and implications for research and practice. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 31, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Canning, C.G.; Allen, N.E.; Nackaerts, E.; Paul, S.S.; Nieuwboer, A.; Gilat, M. Virtual reality in research and rehabilitation of gait and balance in Parkinson disease. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2020, 16, 409–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Berg, L.P.; Vance, J.M. Industry use of virtual reality in product design and manufacturing: A survey. Virtual Real. 2017, 21, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Taleb, T.; Sehad, N.; Nadir, Z.; Song, J. VR-based Immersive Service Management in B5G Mobile Systems: A UAV Command and Control Use Case. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 10, 5349–5363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zawadzki, P.; Żywicki, K.; Buń, P.; Górski, F. Employee Training in an Intelligent Factory Using Virtual Reality. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 135110–135117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wu, W.-C.; Vu, V.-H. Application of Virtual Reality Method in Aircraft Maintenance Service—Taking Dornier 228 as an Example. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 7283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Hernández-Chávez, M.; Cortés-Caballero, J.M.; Pérez-Martínez, Á.A.; Hernández-Quintanar, L.F.; Roa-Tort, K.; Rivera-Fernández, J.D.; Fabila-Bustos, D.A. Development of virtual reality automotive lab for training in engineering students. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Dymora, P.; Kowal, B.; Mazurek, M.; Śliwa, R. The effects of Virtual Reality technology application in the aircraft pilot training process. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 1024, 012099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Tian, Y.; Li, M.; Liu, H.; Liu, S.; Yin, R. Research on 3D Virtual Training Courseware Development System of Civil Aircraft Based on Virtual Reality Technology. In Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR 2019), Singapore, 27–29 July 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 21–25. [Google Scholar]
  118. Wang, Y.; Li, S.; Song, R.; Liu, J.; Ye, M.; Peng, S.; Deng, Y. Effects of Grain Size and Layer Thickness on the Physical and Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Rock Analogs. Energies 2022, 15, 7641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Technological Maturity of Polish Companies in 2019. Available online: https://snt.pl/centrum-wiedzy/raport/ (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  120. Raport Digi Index 2021. Available online: https://new.siemens.com/pl/pl/o-firmie/raporty-siemens/digi-index-2021.html (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  121. Raport Indeks Gospodarki Cyfrowej i Społeczeństwa Cyfrowego (DESI) na 2021. Available online: https://cyberpolicy.nask.pl/indeks-gospodarki-cyfrowej-i-spoleczenstwa-cyfrowego-desi-2021/ (accessed on 12 June 2023).
  122. Poland in the Digital Economy and Society Index. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/desi-poland (accessed on 8 July 2023).
Figure 1. Scheme of research on the digitization of enterprises in Poland. Own study.
Figure 1. Scheme of research on the digitization of enterprises in Poland. Own study.
Sustainability 16 05718 g001
Figure 4. Advantages (a) and disadvantages (b) of digitization. Source: Own study based on [120].
Figure 4. Advantages (a) and disadvantages (b) of digitization. Source: Own study based on [120].
Sustainability 16 05718 g004
Figure 5. The level of digitization index obtained in the study for the studied areas. Source: Own study based on [121].
Figure 5. The level of digitization index obtained in the study for the studied areas. Source: Own study based on [121].
Sustainability 16 05718 g005
Figure 6. Industry structure of the surveyed enterprises (a) and the level of the digitalization index for sectors (b). Source: Own study based on [121].
Figure 6. Industry structure of the surveyed enterprises (a) and the level of the digitalization index for sectors (b). Source: Own study based on [121].
Sustainability 16 05718 g006
Figure 8. Structure of digitalization budgets. Source: Own study based on [121].
Figure 8. Structure of digitalization budgets. Source: Own study based on [121].
Sustainability 16 05718 g008
Figure 9. Competitive advantages of enterprises investing in digitalization. Source: Own study based on [121].
Figure 9. Competitive advantages of enterprises investing in digitalization. Source: Own study based on [121].
Sustainability 16 05718 g009
Figure 10. Poland’s DESI ranking in 2021. Source: Own study based on [40].
Figure 10. Poland’s DESI ranking in 2021. Source: Own study based on [40].
Sustainability 16 05718 g010
Figure 11. Comparison of selected average DESI results for Poland and the European Union for the “Human capital” category. Source: Own study based on [122].
Figure 11. Comparison of selected average DESI results for Poland and the European Union for the “Human capital” category. Source: Own study based on [122].
Sustainability 16 05718 g011
Figure 12. Comparison of selected average DESI results of Poland and the European Union for the “Connectivity” category. Source: Own study based on [122].
Figure 12. Comparison of selected average DESI results of Poland and the European Union for the “Connectivity” category. Source: Own study based on [122].
Sustainability 16 05718 g012
Figure 13. Comparison of selected average DESI results of Poland and the European Union for the “Integration of digital technology” category. Source: Own study based on [122].
Figure 13. Comparison of selected average DESI results of Poland and the European Union for the “Integration of digital technology” category. Source: Own study based on [122].
Sustainability 16 05718 g013
Figure 14. Comparison of selected average DESI results of Poland and the European Union in the “Digital public services” category. Source: Own study based on [122].
Figure 14. Comparison of selected average DESI results of Poland and the European Union in the “Digital public services” category. Source: Own study based on [122].
Sustainability 16 05718 g014
Table 1. Characteristics of reports.
Table 1. Characteristics of reports.
Report NameTechnological Maturity of Polish Companies (TMofPC)Digi Index 2021 (DI)Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)
Author of the studyS&T CompanySiemens CompanyEuropean Commission
Analysis areaIT- machine (30)Cross-sectional analysis
(sector) - automotive (30)
- nutritional (60)
- chemical and pharmaceutical (30)
Group of respondents and size of the research sample251 representatives of SME companies150 companies from various industriesEU Member States
Selected key topics included in the report- knowledge of the concept of digitization- the level of the digitalization index for the six surveyed areas- the report includes country profiles, helping Member States identify areas requiring priority action
- advantages and disadvantages of digitization- IT systems used- provides an EU-level analysis of key digital policy areas:
- obstacles to digital transformation- cloud technologies1. “Human capital”
- areas of enterprise activity requiring digitalization- obstacles to digitalization2. “Connectivity”
- use of cloud solutions- competitive advantages thanks to digitalization3. “Integration of digital technology”
- impact of the pandemic4. “Digital public services”
Table 2. Areas examined in the Siemens report.
Table 2. Areas examined in the Siemens report.
AreasItem under ExaminationTest Result
strategic planningcurrent digitalization strategy, current investment plan, having a road map, and positioning the company1.5
organization and administrationthe role of the organization and the team and their development in the field of digitalization1.3
systems integrationimplementing and integrating IT systems, production systems, and operational activities1.2
production and operationsanalysis of automation, standardization, and security2.3
data managementhow data is collected, used, and managed2.9
application of digital processesdegree of use of digital technologies such as simulation, cloud computing, etc.1.5
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kowal, D.; Radzik, M.; Domaracká, L. Assessment of the Level of Digitalization of Polish Enterprises in the Context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135718

AMA Style

Kowal D, Radzik M, Domaracká L. Assessment of the Level of Digitalization of Polish Enterprises in the Context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Sustainability. 2024; 16(13):5718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135718

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kowal, Dominik, Małgorzata Radzik, and Lucia Domaracká. 2024. "Assessment of the Level of Digitalization of Polish Enterprises in the Context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135718

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop