A Method to Evaluate the Maturity Level of Robotization of Production Processes in the Context of Digital Transformation—Polish Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to read and review this interesting work. The title of your paper is clear and well-suited to its content, effectively conveying the main focus of the study. The abstract provides a comprehensive overview, but it could be more concise. Summarizing key findings and their implications would make it more impactful.
The introduction sets the stage effectively by discussing the evolution from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 and the importance of robotization in modern manufacturing processes. The research objectives are clearly stated, but this section could benefit from including specific challenges faced by Polish manufacturing companies that your study aims to address, providing a more focused context for the reader.
Your literature review is thorough and covers a wide range of relevant topics, including the differences between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 and the role of robotization. However, organizing this section into clear sub-sections would improve readability and flow, helping readers follow the progression of ideas more easily.
The methodology section is detailed and describes the systematic approach used to evaluate the maturity levels of robotization. Including a flowchart or diagram to visually represent the methodology could further aid in understanding the steps involved in the assessment process.
In the results section, you present a comprehensive analysis of the survey data, providing valuable insights into the current and target maturity levels of robotization among Polish SMEs. To enhance this section, consider including more visual aids, such as charts or graphs, to better illustrate key findings. Additionally, discussing the implications of these findings in more detail would be beneficial.
The discussion effectively relates the findings to the broader context of digital transformation and Industry 5.0. However, providing more concrete examples or case studies of companies that have successfully transitioned through different maturity levels would add practical value to the discussion.
The conclusion summarizes the main points of your study and reiterates the importance of advancing robotization maturity. It would be helpful to highlight specific recommendations for companies looking to improve their maturity levels and discuss potential future research directions to explore further advancements in this field.
Overall, your paper offers a valuable contribution to the understanding of robotization maturity in the context of digital transformation. With some refinements in structure and clarity, it has the potential to significantly impact both academia and industry practices. Therefore, I recommend a minor revision to enhance the clarity and impact of your paper. I look forward to seeing the improved version and appreciate the effort you have put into this important research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of the English language in this paper is generally good, but there are some areas where improvement could enhance clarity and readability. The writing is clear and mostly free of grammatical errors, but certain sentences are lengthy and complex, which can make them difficult to follow.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which improved the quality of the article. I agree with all of them. I would also like to thank you for your time and effort in the review.
At the same time, I would like to point out the changes introduced in the revised version of the article:
- “… The abstract provides a comprehensive overview, but it could be more concise. Summarizing key findings and their implications would make it more impactful.”
“The introduction sets the stage effectively by discussing the evolution from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 and the importance of robotization in modern manufacturing processes. The research objectives are clearly stated, but this section could benefit from including specific challenges faced by Polish manufacturing companies that your study aims to address, providing a more focused context for the reader.”
The method presented in the article was developed for small and medium-sized enterprises but is not limited to this type of entity. Polish entrepreneurs are part of the research results presented, and the method is not limited to the territory of this country. The approach can be applied to all companies aiming to lead digital transformation by consciously automating production processes, regardless of location. The primary objective was to address the issues in the first ADMA transformation (i.e., Advanced Manufacturing Technologies). The main barriers for businesses were also identified in the conclusions (Lines 541-575).
A summary of the rationale for the method implemented has been added to the introduction (lines 101-105). The main challenges of entrepreneurs are included in Chapter 2.1 (Lines 129-141), which discusses issues that arose from the initial survey. A table with the fundamental development directions of the industries being surveyed has also been added (Table 10). The research summary also indicates guidance for entrepreneurs based on guidelines outlined in the Industry 4.0/5.0 definition (Table 11).
- “Your literature review is thorough and covers a wide range of relevant topics, including the differences between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 and the role of robotization. However, organizing this section into clear sub-sections would improve readability and flow, helping readers follow the progression of ideas more easily.”
The method concerns a multi-aspect approach. The presented approach aims to help entrepreneurs achieve digital maturity for their company by improving the robotization of the production process. The digital transformation process involves designing, managing, optimizing, and monitoring business, production, and logistics processes to implement continuous improvement and sustainability practices. The correct implementation of change requires digital awareness, which determines the possession of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to use digital tools effectively.
The method aims to systematize the robotization approach in the context of digital transformation and Industry 4.0/5.0. The author reviewed available methods for assessing company maturity. However, each method only covered employees regarding the necessary training required to operate the proposed systems. The methods also do not provide recommendations or guidance for entrepreneurs. For this reason, the author refers to literature on various topics.
- “The methodology section is detailed and describes the systematic approach used to evaluate the maturity levels of robotization. Including a flowchart or diagram to visually represent the methodology could further aid in understanding the steps involved in the assessment process.”
An algorithm and its description have been added to clarify the method for assessing digital maturity (Lines 203-228).
- „In the results section, you present a comprehensive analysis of the survey data, providing valuable insights into the current and target maturity levels of robotization among Polish SMEs. To enhance this section, consider including more visual aids, such as charts or graphs, to better illustrate key findings. Additionally, discussing the implications of these findings in more detail would be beneficial. The discussion effectively relates the findings to the broader context of digital transformation and Industry 5.0. However, providing more concrete examples or case studies of companies that have successfully transitioned through different maturity levels would add practical value to the discussion.”
The maturity levels presented result from research conducted by the author since 2019 in collaboration with the Future Industry Platform Foundation, where the author is employed. The FPPP is a State Treasury Foundation established under the supervision of the Ministry of Development and Technology. Currently, the Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy supervises the FPPP. The FPPP pertains to the provisions found at www:
https://przemyslprzyszlosci.gov.pl/future-industry-platform-the-mission-and-contact/
Various entrepreneurs at different stages of business development were consulted. The approach that was presented was well received by the interviewed entrepreneurs. Additionally, the conducted surveys will help selected entrepreneurs apply for funding for digitalization projects in the upcoming funding cycles.
The article's main aim was to present a method for assessing digital maturity and the overall results. The Author cannot refer to specific companies individually, as the survey assumed the anonymity of those participating. However, tables 10 and 11 have been added as a summary.
- The conclusion summarizes the main points of your study and reiterates the importance of advancing robotization maturity. It would be helpful to highlight specific recommendations for companies looking to improve their maturity levels and discuss potential future research directions to explore further advancements in this field.
A table with the fundamental development directions of the industries being surveyed has also been added (Table 10). The research summary also indicates guidance for entrepreneurs based on the guidelines outlined in the definition of Industry 4.0/5.0 (Table 11).
I have made language corrections at this stage, but the final corrections will be introduced at the article's final editing stage.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is well written and well organized. However, I would suggest submitting this article to another type of journal - like other title/focus than Applied Sciences: e.g. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, etc. That will be more relevant to that journal audience.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is fine. Minor improvement is possible.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which improved the quality of the article. I agree with all of them. I would also like to thank you for your time and effort in the review.
I chose this journal because of its close focus on automation and robotics, which is important for the method presented. I leave the final decision on publication to the Editorial Board.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn line 123, it is mentioned that certain criteria were used. The sentence ends with a colon, suggesting that the following bullet points are the criteria mentioned. I believe these bullet points need a tab to clearly indicate that they are the criteria referenced.
Figure 3 uses certain colors, and these ideas are further broken down in Figure 4. However, the color usage is inconsistent. For example, key area 1 is light blue in Figure 3, but in Figure 4, light blue is used for the second element in each row. This inconsistency can confuse the reader.
The key areas and recommendations provided by the author are very interesting. It might be beneficial to add a reference to establish these ideas more firmly.
In my opinion, Figure 6 is not easy to interpret.
Tables 2-6 could be simplified, with the detailed information provided in an appendix.
Table 7 is very important, especially for developing countries, because it represents data for a country in the European Union.
I personally think this situation should be reported to the commercial sector and the government of Poland to suggest a strategy to strengthen the economy.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which improved the quality of the article. I agree with all of them. I would also like to thank you for your time and effort in the review.
At the same time, I would like to point out the changes introduced in the revised version of the article:
- “In line 123, it is mentioned that certain criteria were used. The sentence ends with a colon, suggesting that the following bullet points are the criteria mentioned. I believe these bullet points need a tab to clearly indicate that they are the criteria referenced.”
Suggested changes have been made.
- “Figure 3 uses certain colors, and these ideas are further broken down in Figure 4. However, the color usage is inconsistent. For example, key area 1 is light blue in Figure 3, but in Figure 4, light blue is used for the second element in each row. This inconsistency can confuse the reader.”
Figures 3 and 4 have been corrected. An explanation has also been added (lines 237-239). Adjustments have also been made to the other figures (i.e. 6 and 7), which have been developed in the same convention.
- In my opinion, Figure 6 is not easy to interpret.
Suggested changes have been made.
- “The key areas and recommendations provided by the author are very interesting. It might be beneficial to add a reference to establish these ideas more firmly.”
“Tables 2-6 could be simplified, with the detailed information provided in an appendix.”
“Table 7 is very important, especially for developing countries, because it represents data for a country in the European Union. I personally think this situation should be reported to the commercial sector and the government of Poland to suggest a strategy to strengthen the economy.”
The maturity levels presented result from research conducted by the author since 2019 in collaboration with the Future Industry Platform Foundation, where the author is employed. The FPPP is a State Treasury Foundation established under the supervision of the Ministry of Development and Technology. Currently, the Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy supervises the FPPP. The FPPP pertains to the provisions found at www:
https://przemyslprzyszlosci.gov.pl/future-industry-platform-the-mission-and-contact/
Various entrepreneurs at different stages of business development were consulted. The approach that was presented was well received by the interviewed entrepreneurs. Additionally, the conducted surveys will help selected entrepreneurs apply for funding for digitalization projects in the upcoming funding cycles.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author throws the word "robotization" everywhere. Without implementation anything in robotics. Not even any calculations about payload, center of mass, rigid body stress, collision detection, signal processing, image processing, pattern recognition, and the list goes on and on.
The article continues pretty much the same. It is an article on Organization and Methods, or Business Administration, or National Statistics. The author should submit the paper to a journal in that area: business administration, methods and organization. If that's the focus that currently the Applied Science journal decided to pursue, then is ok to publish the paper. However, it is by no means a work on software engineering, system implementation, or robotics programming for automation. For example, on Page 31 - Table 10, the author mentions about Artificial Intelligence, and also mentions about Real Time Connectivity; However, nothing was implemented or done by author on testing or validating neither A.I. nor Real Time data transmission; the only thing the author does about A.I. and Real Time is to superficially talk about it, on how it should/could be.
In the Conclusion, on page 31, the author even explicitly said: "The presented approach aims to help entrepreneur". So, the article is a management business concept framework. Not about applied science, not about engineering in robotics with any hands on implementation, nor even any simulation or numeral analysis related to robotics control is presented, nor any empirical calculations to proof of concept is presented.
If other reviewers see no problem with the article, then the decision is up to the editor in chief that will decide. But my clear opinion is that this article is not suitable with the allegedly focus of the Journal Applied Sciences.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your critical comments. The article does not include simulations, calculations, implementation, or a description of specific deployment cases. I fully agree with the facts presented.
The article focuses on a method for assessing the maturity level of entrepreneurial robotization, with entrepreneurs in Poland as a representative group. However, it's important to note that the method's applicability is not limited to this country.
I want to highlight the objectives of developing the method:
- currently, EU countries are in the process of subsidizing industrial deployment from FENG projects, many entrepreneurs are interested in implementing robotization - but do not know what criteria they should use for selection,
- many robot selection cases ignore aspects of further integrating robotic workstations into existing production lines and cells,
- entrepreneurs are unable to formulate requirements (but we cannot require them to have advanced and directional knowledge of robotization).
Incorrect selection, configuration, and integration of robotic workstations lead to technological debt and the inability of businesses to function.
Answering in detail:
- „The author throws the word "robotization" everywhere. Without implementation anything in robotics. Not even any calculations about payload, center of mass, rigid body stress, collision detection, signal processing, image processing, pattern recognition, and the list goes on and on.”
The survey results cover the current and planned state of the businesses surveyed. A further survey is planned for a two-year perspective to evaluate the enterprises' indicated plans.
- „The article continues pretty much the same. It is an article on Organization and Methods, or Business Administration, or National Statistics. The author should submit the paper to a journal in that area: business administration, methods and organization. If that's the focus that currently the Applied Science journal decided to pursue, then is ok to publish the paper. However, it is by no means a work on software engineering, system implementation, or robotics programming for automation. For example, on Page 31 - Table 10, the author mentions about Artificial Intelligence, and also mentions about Real Time Connectivity; However, nothing was implemented or done by author on testing or validating neither A.I. nor Real Time data transmission; the only thing the author does about A.I. and Real Time is to superficially talk about it, on how it should/could be.”
Tables 10 and 11 summarize the main planned change areas, not current implementations. SMEs in Poland do not have a budget for implementation. Further studies are planned to analyze the implementation of specific technological areas.
- „In the Conclusion, on page 31, the author even explicitly said: "The presented approach aims to help entrepreneur". So, the article is a management business concept framework. Not about applied science, not about engineering in robotics with any hands on implementation, nor even any simulation or numeral analysis related to robotics control is presented, nor any empirical calculations to proof of concept is presented.”
At this stage, providing proof-of-concept and method indicators is impossible. We are dealing with preliminary survey results, but a further survey is planned to evaluate the level of implementation in individual industries. Such a study will provide a deeper insight into entrepreneurs' needs.
