Proposal of a Tool for Determining Sub- and Main Dimension Indicators in Assessing Internal Logistics Readiness for Industry 4.0 within a Company

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An interesting read.

Author Response

All comments from the reviewers were implemented in the article/explained.

Some parts of the article were modified, references added...

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for your submission to Applied Sciences. Please find below several comments for your consideration:

1. The majority of the introduction is not written like an academic paper, but like a practice report. A research gap and theoretical contribution remain unclear, large parts are not based on academic references.
2. The same is true for large parts of section 2. Section 2 does only state what was analyzed, but not how or what the analyzed maturity models are characterized by. Some seem to be rather out of focus for SCM or logistics. This conceptualization does not become clear.
3. How and why Industry 4.0 and logistics are interconnected remains unclear, academic references are missing such as Tang, C. S., & Veelenturf, L. P. (2019). The strategic role of logistics in the industry 4.0 era. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 129, 1-11. or Birkel, H. S., & Müller, J. M. (2020). Potentials of industry 4.0 for supply chain management within the triple bottom line of sustainability–A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125612.
4. The result section are rather hard to follow, this section is more of a method section than actual results. How this was developed remains unclear.
5. The actual results are very short and it remains unclear what this has to do with the maturity models analyzed or what is actually included in the respective stages of the model.
6. Discussion and conclusion are underdeveloped and much too short for an academic article. Contributions for research and practice remain unclear, what are future research avenues etc.?

Author Response

1. The majority of the introduction is not written like an academic paper, but like a practice report. A research gap and theoretical contribution remain unclear, large parts are not based on academic references. – section was updated and changed fo fit the academic style, paragraphsa were added etc…
2. The same is true for large parts of section 2. Section 2 does only state what was analyzed, but not how or what the analyzed maturity models are characterized by. Some seem to be rather out of focus for SCM or logistics. This conceptualization does not become clear. – section was changed, modified to suit the article more
3. How and why Industry 4.0 and logistics are interconnected remains unclear, academic references are missing such as Tang, C. S., & Veelenturf, L. P. (2019). The strategic role of logistics in the industry 4.0 era. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 129, 1-11. or Birkel, H. S., & Müller, J. M. (2020). Potentials of industry 4.0 for supply chain management within the triple bottom line of sustainability– A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125612. – references added, also see other references in the beginning of the article, also Disseration theses of one of the authors which serves as a basis for the research.
4. The result section are rather hard to follow, this section is more of a method section than actual results. How this was developed remains unclear. – presenting a developed maturity model is the main result of the article. Thank you for the valuable input, this section was already reforulated in the article to suit more.
5. The actual results are very short and it remains unclear what this has to do with the maturity models analyzed or what is actually included in the respective stages of the model.- as mentioned in the article, there are almost no models comprehensively evaluating the readiness of the company within the concept of Industry 4.0 in the field of internal logistics. Thatswhy the authors decided ti propose one.
6. Discussion and conclusion are underdeveloped and much too short for an academic article. Contributions for research and practice remain unclear, what are future research avenues etc.? – this was added, also using MCDM methods and models for future search.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors proposed a method for calculating the values ​​of the level boundaries to assess the readiness of the internal logistics of machine-building enterprises for Industry 4.0.
The strong point of the manuscript is the literature review of models of readiness of internal logistics for Industry 4.0.
The manuscript needs significant improvement to strengthen the scientific soundness of the research.
My suggestions for improving the manuscript.
1. The presented model is simple and based on several subjective assumptions. In particular, it is not clear why the authors chose such a function (3)? Why are 5 levels selected (lines 391-393)? What is the justification for the value of 40% (lines 402-403) and why “… integral ?_? should take the values ​​?_? ∈ <0; 6>” (lines 389-390)? I suggest justifying the choice of these numerical values ​​of the model.
2. The resulting function (9) and graphs (Fig. 2,3) are based solely on the subjective and unreasonable assumptions of the authors about the form of the function and the values ​​of the coefficients. Therefore, this function cannot be used to assess the level of readiness of internal logistics for Industry 4.0 without proper justification.
3. I suggest clarifying how the specifics of internal logistics and machines building enterprises are considered in the presented model. Why do the authors propose to use the developed model for assessing internal logistics? Is this approach and model universal?
4. The contribution of this study to the development of existing models for assessing the readiness of enterprises for Industry 4.0 is unclear. I suggest using the obtained interval ranges (after its substantiation) on the data of other models analyzed in section 2.1.
5. I suggest comparing the method and model proposed by the authors with multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM). In our opinion, the use of MCDM methods and models will allow obtaining a more adequate assessment of the readiness of logistics for Industry 4.0 in comparison with the proposed model.
6. The commas in Table 1 must be replaced with decimal points.
7. It is not clear what “dissertation” the authors are talking about in line 119?

Author Response

1. The presented model is simple and based on several subjective assumptions. In particular, it is not clear why the authors chose such a function (3)? Why are 5 levels selected (lines 391-393)? What is the justification for the value of 40% (lines 402-403) and why “… integral ?_?should take the values ​​?_?∈ <0; 6>” (lines 389-390)? I suggest justifying the choice of these numerical values ​​of the model. - an exponential function was used to divide the interval between <0; 1>. Five levels of maturity are used in the original CMMI tiered model. 40% of the points is not Industry 4.0, it is just the beginning of digitization. First it is necessary to digitize the company, then it is possible to implement Industry 4.0. 40% is the point from which we start, is not a threshold, it is a border of digitization and it is chosen practically (already included in the article for better understanding). The achieved level is the largest integer multiple of the area of size 1 (size of each level), and can be realized on the interval <0, 6> (see Figure 3).
   2. The resulting function (9) and graphs (Fig. 2,3) are based solely on the subjective and unreasonable assumptions of the authors about the form of the function and the values ​​of the coefficients. Therefore, this function cannot be used to assess the level of readiness of internal logistics for Industry 4.0 without proper justification. – we accept your criticism. The goal was to find a mathematical function that will allocate levels of sub- and main dimensions from already set indicator levels. The closest one, was presented in the article (function noted as 9). The values were taken from resuplt of questionnaires which were running in the companies. Maybe a bigger sample is needed for the future…
   3. I suggest clarifying how the specifics of internal logistics and machines building enterprises are considered in the presented model. Why do the authors propose to use the developed model for assessing internal logistics? Is this approach and model universal? – Internal logistic is onr of the main authors research field. The model was created fom implementing logistics into I4.0, but a variation of it could be maybe used for other company areas as well. Thanks for the valuable remark and the authors will think about this as a future development
   4. The contribution of this study to the development of existing models for assessing the readiness of enterprises for Industry 4.0 is unclear. I suggest using the obtained interval ranges (after its substantiation) on the data of other models analyzed in section 2.1. – as mentioned in the article, there are almost no models comprehensively evaluating the readiness of the company within the concept of Industry 4.0 in the field of internal logistics. This was the main intention to prepare one.
   5. I suggest comparing the method and model proposed by the authors with multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM). In our opinion, the use of MCDM methods and models will allow obtaining a more adequate assessment of the readiness of logistics for Industry 4.0 in comparison with the proposed model. – this is indeed a suitable remark, was included in the final part of the article. As noted, we will continue our research. Thank you for the input
   6. The commas in Table 1 must be replaced with decimal points. – updated and replaced with decimal points
   7. It is not clear what “dissertation” the authors are talking about in line 119? – the main conception of the article rises from the dissertation thesis of one of the authors. The study which is already mentioned in the article was conducted for several years. The dissertation itself is cited in references under the number 55

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I concur with Reviewer 2: Comments were partially implemented, but not to a full extent:

1. Introduction: I still do not see a clear literature gap that rectifies this article, no such additions have been made.
2. Some of the added parts are not implemented too well: e.g., line 356 starts without explanation and seems isolated from the rest of the text. I would not start a sentece with a number.
3. The discussion still does not discuss the results with literature, not a single reference can be found here. It is required to add the article`s contribution in comparison to extant models and research and cite the adequate papers here.
4. Some recent articles on readiness/maturtity and supply chain can be added and discussed, such as: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JMTM-10-2020-0382/full/html?skipTracking=true or https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925527320302401

Author Response

1. Introduction: Part of the introduction was not properly cited. Added up-to-date works, proper citations. 
2. This part was corrected, also explained why we chose 40%
3. The discussion still does not discuss the results with literature, not a single reference can be found here. It is required to add the article`s contribution in comparison to extant models and research and cite the adequate papers here.
4. Thanks for the input, articles were added, also recent works which helped us to form the methodology and to develop it.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have partially considered of the reviewers suggestions and responded to several comments.
However, we still have the following questions.
1. We propose to explain in more detail the choice of the 40% level. Readers should understand what the authors mean by the expression “it is chosen practically” (line 358).
2. The authors say, responding to our second comment, that “The values ​​were taken from result of questionnaires which were running in the companies”. We suggest adding an appendix with the results of the questionnaire to the manuscript. Readers should understand how the numerical values ​​of the coefficients in formula 9 were obtained.

Author Response

As main criterion and starting point for dividing the whole interval <0;1> level 2 is used in general. Level 2 is defined by the authors as an established process control with full digitization. It was therefore estimated and, in consultation with the experts, that the company at this Level 2 should obtain at least 40% of the points. Figure 3 shows this distribution of the interval between the 6 levels. Level 1 is defined as a controlled process with certified process management, however without digitization and vice versa Level 3 is that the company has controlled processes that are partially automated and connected to an external data source. This point does not mean that the company has all the technologies according to "Industry 4.0". It marks the beginning of digitization. First, it is necessary to digitize the company, then it is possible to introduce technologies according to Industry 4.0. It is a point from which the company bounces, it is not borderline, it is a border of digitization.  

2. Added to appendix

There is a list of all companies and also a list of companies with points earned
from the questionnaire. Then, there is a value of the pointer, subdimension and dimension, then the value of the whole area of internal logistics.