Evaluation of the Level and Readiness of Internal Logistics for Industry 4.0 in Industrial Companies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is proposing an evaluation index to assess the level of logistics within a company and its readiness to implement industrie4.0 in order to evaluate its suitability prior to the implementation of industrie4.0.
The above proposed evaluation indices are derived from the results of previous research and surveys of related papers, and their contents are extremely interesting and will provide important insights for accelerating the future diffusion of industrie4.0.
On the other hand, there is insufficient evaluation of how appropriate the evaluations based on these evaluation indicators really are, and I do not think that their reliability and practicality have been sufficiently demonstrated. Given the subject matter of this study, it is extremely important to demonstrate the reliability and practicality of the proposals, and I strongly urge the authors to present a reasonable view on this point.
Author Response
Dear editor,
thank you primarily for evaluating my paper and for your comments, which are processed in the next version of the paper.
In the attachment, you can find the Word file where is the new version of the paper. The completed comments are supplemented by a brief comment in the text.
Comments on the reliability and practicality of the proposed structure of internal logistics (dimensions, sub-dimensions, indicators) are explained at the beginning of Chapter 3 and Chapter 6.2.
Comments on this review are provided with the Review Report (Reviewer 1) commentary. I believe that the comments are processed correctly.
Thank you and best regards
Ing. Michal Zoubek, Ph.D.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
In the attachment you will find the review of your manuscript and the requirements for its improvement before publication.
Best regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear editor,
Thank you primarily for evaluating my paper and for your comments, which are processed in the next version of the paper.
In the attachment, you can find the Word file where is the new version of the paper. The completed comments are supplemented by a brief comment in the text.
Point 1: Added (introduction in subchapter 1.3)
Point 2: Added
Point 3: Processed
Point 4: Checked by an English native speaker
Point 5: Added
Comments on this review are provided with the Review Report (Reviewer 2) commentary. I believe that the comments are processed correctly.
Thank you and best regards
Ing. Michal Zoubek, Ph.D.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In response to the suggestion that there is insufficient verification regarding the reliability of the proposed method, the authors claim that the reliability of the proposed method is based on the consistency of the trend with data from the Czech Statistical Office. However, they do not sufficiently explain what this consistency logically means. Please explain the scientific basis for the reliability of the proposed method in a more detailed and logical manner.
Author Response
Dear editor,
I would like to write you more information about your comment, which concerns the objectivity and practicality of the proposal.
The methodology focuses only on the readiness of internal logistics processes for Industry 4.0. The structure of internal logistics is therefore designed to cover the largest possible field of these processes. Therefore, a total of 46 indicators are proposed. In the paper I mention only examples of one dimension D2: Storage, however I can send a list of all 46 indicators. Alternatively, I can send you a list of all 46 indicators separately or insert an attachment.
In order for the indicators to be appropriate and the proposal to be practical, the author uses the experience from companies (I worked on several projects for internal logistics in several companies). For practicality, the methodology used for medium-sized and large companies with serial production is also limited. Small companies with piece production do not have the proposed indicators (or subdimensions) in the companies and the evaluation will not be objective.
Another aspect for practicality: The methodology was applied to 29 companies. The companies were interviewed by a team of experts to collect input data.
Data from CZSO were only compared according to the criterion of company size. The results agree because large companies innovate more than small companies.
Please let me know if I should process these aspects of practicality into paper summarized in one paragraph for example.
Thank you
Michal Zoubek
