Framework for Implementing Industry 4.0 Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting article, but ir requires improvements. The main problem is the article structure. To me you have to follow the standard one: Abstract- Introduction- Theoretical framework - Methodology- Results - Discussion and implications, and limitations of the study and conclusion. In this way, it is easy to understand your work.

Following this reasoning, you will find below some recommendations:

1 Improve the motivation of the study.

2 Develop a theoretical framework section where you present the Industry 4.0 concept and the PRINCE 2 framework - you can move the parts from section 5

3 You have to define why you consider the samples as experts in I4.0 projects.

4 I don't understand the section 3.Theoretical Basis, you can probably call it the results of the literature review.

5 After you present the results of the literature review, you have to present the results of the interviews.

6 Results and analysis seem to be a sort of discussion where you present the contribution, but it is not clear.

7 Conclude the part with the framework and explain how you measure the relationship - the +  and ++. Moreover, explain how you condense your findings in the PRINCE2 frameworks.

8 Add implications for researchers

9 Add implication for managers

10 Clearly present limitations of the study

11 15 references for a systematic literature review are not sufficient.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It needs to be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING INDUSTRY 4.0 PROJECTS

Review

GENERAL OVERVIEW

The topic of the paper is relevant because it provides guidelines for Industry 4.0 projects implementation since Industry 4.0 has a lot of implementation challenges reported (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9207825; https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9540626).

However, this paper deals with Industry 4.0 projects implementation, while we are currently in the age of the Industry 5.0 initiative officially adopted in 2021 by the European Commission. The main difference between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0, is that Industry 4.0 is more a technology-oriented concept, while Industry 5.0 is a resilient, sustainable, and human-centered concept (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550922002093). Please, consider how to incorporate the aspects of Industry 5.0 in your research to include humanity, resilience, and sustainability in your research.

INTRODUCTION

The Introduction is nicely written. It is easy to follow, and very clear with the objectives.

However, the Introduction must provide a more detailed literature review since there is a quite small number of referenced citations (only 8 in the Introduction, and only 29 in total). Please, insert more references.

RESEARCH APPROACH

Please, explain why you only included articles published until September 30, 2020, since now is 2024. There is a more than three-year gap. Therefore, the relevance of the research is questionable.

Based on what criterion did you make the selection of Final Bibliographic Portfolio, where you left only 15 articles? It is not clear what you refer to under “relevant insights and expanding the scope of the study”. Please, be more specific.

Figure 2: PRISMA should provide more information visually. Please, improve it.

The expert interviews are well described.

THEORETICAL BASIS

The Theoretical Basis section lacks more references. Also, the provision of addressed challenges has no novelty, since there are paper that deals with Industry 4.0 implementation challenges from both technological and managerial perspectives.

Contrary to that, Implementation success factors can be useful for the system designers and practitioners. However, this part also lacks the references.

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

This section is not well described.  It lacks references as well as a systematic approach od describing the results. Moreover, it is quite unlogical that the section Results and Analysis comes before the Framework section. It should be considered that the section Results and Analysis be a discussion of framework implementation. In its current form, it does not provide any additional value to the readers because it is already known.

FRAMEWORK

The word is missing in Figure 3. I assume it should be “Feedback”.

In the title of Figure 3. it should be put that the framework is the extended version of the PRINCE2 framework.

Figure 3. must provide more information. What are the steps in each phase? Why do we have both sides arrows? When do we need to go into the previous phase? The framework does not illustrate its complexity even though the Industry 4.0 project implementation is quite complex. Consider adding more explanations in Figure 3, which may be useful to project managers.

 

The results of the relationship between the insights from the cases and each one of the steps of the framework are not discussed. What are the benefits? If you leave only the table 3. without an explanation and discussion, the reader may ask “SO WHAT? Should I start with the Industry 4.0 projects or not? In which aspect to start?” and so on.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language is okay.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript looks much better now. I suggest  to be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Quality of the English Language can be improved, however it is readable and understandable.