Expected Impact of Industry 4.0 on Employment in Selected Professions in the Czech Republic and Germany

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript explores the impact of technologies related to Industry 4.0 on employment expectations, applying a questionnaire survey among workers of engineering companies. This approach is unusual for studying the problem and can provide a worthy contribution to the field. Moreover, the authors apparently collected a proper amount of data that could generate a first-rate article using the statistical analysis they applied.

Unfortunately, the paper structure is confusing, the text is unclear, and the constructs and variables are not defined. This problem begins in the Introduction, where the research problem and the objectives of the article should be declared, but instead, the reader will find some broad ideas about the industrial market.

The Theoretical Background should concentrate on information about the variables tested in the survey: “the term Industry 4.0,” “the concept of Internet of Things,” “the concept of Internet of Services,” “the concept of cloud tools,” “the concept of stand-alone robots,” and “the term cobots” (as stated in page 7). These concepts are mentioned in the last three paragraphs of sub-item 1.2 and must be explained better. A Table with these constructs would improve the readability of the work. Besides, the Theoretical Background should also reveal the literature perception about the relationship between these technologies and employment, which I think you intended to do in item 1.3. Unfortunately, the comments in this item are not easily linked with the survey results.

You explained the research design in the Methodology, beginning with two hypotheses. The first one is hard to read because of some issues:

a)     You named here “parts of industry 4.0” the concepts ill-defined in the Theoretical Background. Do you think IoT, IoS, and others are parts of Industry 4.0? Then, please, defend this idea in the Theoretical Background item.

b)     “Change expectations” and “preparedness to termination” are different variables that are split into two parts in the results. Therefore, they should also be divided when the hypotheses are presented and in the questionnaire.

c)     To better understand your research plan, it is important to give access to the questionnaire.

 

I can’t understand the item “2.3. Data Collection”. You said in item 2.1:

“The primary research in the form of a questionnaire survey was aimed at employees in manual occupations (regular and temporary workers) and students. 90 companies from the Czech Republic, and 303 companies from the Germany were interviewed. From this number, a total of 67 companies from the Czech Republic and 160 companies from the Federal Republic of Germany showed interest in participating in the research. The individual groups of respondents are then listed below, broken down by research focus and location:”

 

In item 2.3, you go on describing data collecting methods and dates only to the Czech Republic companies. And the German companies?

Dates are also puzzling:

“This survey was realized from November 2020 to July 2021. The research for the paper was realized in the pre-crisis period before Covid-19 …” What is the research you had done before the survey?

Then you finish this item by giving numbers of data collection that contradict item 2.1. It seems you did two different surveys, but you didn’t explain the reason for that nor separate the results. For the reader, it is bewildering.

Item 3 Results:

The statistical analysis seems all right, but I can’t evaluate it because of the issues on the methodology item. Once again, I miss the questionnaire.

 

Conclusions:

This item should be a view of the main contributions of your investigation to the body of knowledge based on the results.

In general, authors don’t introduce new data or references in this item. But on the other hand, a discussion is expected comparing your results with articles cited in the Theoretical Background item.

 

In brief, I like the theme and the employees' survey method, and I strongly encourage you to persist in publishing this research. However, for that, the manuscript must undergo a severe structure change so that contributions to the field can emerge.

Author Response

TASK 1) The manuscript explores the impact of technologies related to Industry 4.0 .......

• The structure of the paper is according to the general approach IMRD/C (Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion/Conclusions). At the same time, the structure reflects previously published papers in the journal.

TASK 2) ... You explained the research design in the Methodology, beginning with two hypotheses. The first one is hard to read because of some issues:

a) You named here “parts of industry 4.0” the concepts ill-defined in the Theoretical Background. Do you think IoT, IoS, and others are parts of Industry 4.0? Then, please, defend this idea in the Theoretical Background item.

b) “Change expectations” and “preparedness to termination” are different variables that are split into two parts in the results. Therefore, they should also be divided when the hypotheses are presented and in the questionnaire.

c) To better understand your research plan, it is important to give access to the questionnaire.

• Task A) We extended description of the theoretical part.
• Task B) We split hypothesis 1 into new H1 and H2. Previous H2 has become H3.
• Task C) The questionnaire’s length is over 6 pages. At the same time, it is not common to put whole questionnaire form in scientific papers.

TASK 3) I can’t understand the item “2.3. Data Collection”. You said in item 2.1: “The primary research in the form of a questionnaire survey was aimed at employees in manual occupations (regular and temporary workers) and students. 90 companies from the Czech Republic, and 303 companies from the Germany were interviewed. From this number, a total of 67 companies from the Czech Republic and 160 companies from the Federal Republic of Germany showed interest in participating in the research. The individual groups of respondents are then listed below, broken down by research focus and location:” In item 2.3, you go on describing data collecting methods and dates only to the Czech Republic companies. And the German companies?

• We merged duplicate information and deleted it from chapter 2.3
• We forgot to mention Germany in chapter 2.3. Now, it is added

TASK 4) Dates are also puzzling:

• There were two different surveys, provided by the authors. The paper is based on only one survey. We re-wrote the text to clear description

TASK 5) Item 3 Results:

The statistical analysis seems all right, but I can’t evaluate it because of the issues on the methodology item. Once again, I miss the questionnaire.

• Data from the paper is part of bigger research, focused on the combination of I4.0 and employment of specific professions in engineering companies from Czech Republic and Germany.
• The questionnaire’s length is over 6 pages. At the same time, it is not common to put whole questionnaire form in scientific papers.

 

TASK 6) Conclusions:

This item should be a view of the main contributions of your investigation to the body of knowledge based on the results.

• We added figures to a clear understanding of the topic. According to statistical results, we also added figure 3, providing visual dependencies.
• We added the limitation of the main research and the paper is added to the conclusion chapter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article provides interesting research data for researched countries. Results analysed and got by surveying provide results that could be expected in advance as the result of logical assumptions. Still it is not clear what changes are needesd (if needed ) for new adaptation to job market changes.

Author Response

The article provides interesting research data for researched countries. Results analysed and got by surveying provide results that could be expected in advance as the result of logical assumptions. Still it is not clear what changes are needesd (if needed ) for new adaptation to job market changes.

• We added explaining of the situation in the conclusion chapter, providing limitations and describing gained results.
• Also, there was an extended literature background.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

·        The English language, grammar, spelling of the research require review

Abstract:

·        The English and grammar : (line 9-10)

·        Should include short summary of the results

Introduction

·        Title numbers should be sequence (1. Introduction, 2. Theoretical background, ……)

·        You should include the research questions and contributions.

Theoretical background

·        Consistency in English formatting (line 102-117)

·        What is the research gap? And how you intend to fill the gap?

 

Methodology

·        It is good to draw a diagram from the methodology used.

Conclusion

·        What are the research limitations, target groups, and future research

Author Response

Abstract:

The English and grammar : (line 9-10)

Should include short summary of the results

• The grammar has been corrected.
• We added a short description of findings.

Introduction

Title numbers should be sequence (1. Introduction, 2. Theoretical background, ……)

You should include the research questions and contributions.

• Chapters are numbered.
• We defined hypothesis, not general research questions.

Theoretical background

Consistency in English formatting (line 102-117)

What is the research gap? And how you intend to fill the gap?

• The grammar has been corrected.
• There is added description of actual situation what should be relevant to the gap.

Methodology

It is good to draw a diagram from the methodology used.

• For purpose of the paper, a research diagram is not suitable.

Conclusion

What are the research limitations, target groups, and future research

• The limitation of the main research and the paper is added to the conclusion chapter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Quality management - a key area of Industry 4.0. How can you demonstrate the link between quality management and the research area mentioned in this article?

2. I ask you to represent the areas mentioned in 1.2 as a model

3. In chapter 2 you state that both lines were evaluated for companies from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Germany. But in the hypotheses you no longer mention Slovakia. How is it then?

4. Evaluation of the questionnaire data requires deeper analysis and the use of methods other than chi-square test is not enough. Indicate the use of other methods to evaluate the questionnaire data.

5. Table 1 and 2 should be replaced by a graph

6. Suggest a way forward for businesses based on the findings of the survey.

Author Response

• 1. Quality management - a key area of Industry 4.0. How can you demonstrate the link between quality management and the research area mentioned in this article?
• The QM is considered one of the key areas in each company for a long time. We described the connection in the last paragraph of the Introduction chapter.
• 2. I ask you to represent the areas mentioned in 1.2 as a model
• • We decided to add two charts of I4.0 into chapter 2.2 according to the theoretical description.

• 3. In chapter 2 you state that both lines were evaluated for companies from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Germany. But in the hypotheses you no longer mention Slovakia. How is it then?

• In the paper, there is no mention of Slovakia. The whole research and the paper are focused on companies in the Czech Republic and Germany.
• 4. Evaluation of the questionnaire data requires deeper analysis and the use of methods other than chi-square test is not enough. Indicate the use of other methods to evaluate the questionnaire data.

• To verify the results of chi-square we employed the second test Kendall's tau and we added results to tables 1-3.
• 5. Table 1 and 2 should be replaced by a graph

• It is not possible to convert the tables into graphs, as the meaning of the significance would be lost.

• 6. Suggest a way forward for businesses based on the findings of the survey.

• The limitation of the main research and the paper is added to the conclusion chapter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The improvement in the manuscript is noticeable. Nevertheless, the text still has some shortcomings that shall be addressed.

I’ll begin commenting on the changes you made to my request:

1)    I asked to announce the research problem in the Introduction, and you added it at the beginning of item 2, "Theoretical Background." It is suitable.

2)    As requested, you expanded item 2 and gave more details on Industry 4.0 and its enabling technologies. For that, you referred to Oesterreich (2016), an already referenced article, and Deloitte (2015). The paper from Oesterreich is an excellent article; however, it analyses the construction industry and is 7 years old; the one from Deloitte is 8 years old. In this field, more than five years represent a lot.

So, I strongly suggest you substitute one of them for new literature. There are several recent articles proposing a future agenda; one that I recommend is:

Lemstra (2023). Industry 4.0: a tertiary literature review. Technological Forecasting &Social Change
But you can choose any other new reference.

3)    Still in item 2, you added two figures that improved the clarity of the research structure.
However, it is missing the citation of the figures in the previous paragraph. Every figure or table should be cited in the text.

4)    Item 3 – The Methodology is more transparent now.

5)    In item 4, Results, you added figure 3 and commented on it in the previous paragraph. However, you didn’t explain it. Is it a correlation chart between expectations and knowledge? Then, name it “Correlation chart” or “Scatter chart.” And, please, name Dimensions 1 and 2 as expectations and knowledge. In this case, you won’t have two points, one blue and the other red.

6)    Item 5, Conclusions: The text you inserted in the second paragraph summarizes the contributions of your article and, so, it closes a gap. Ok.
On the other hand, the last paragraph is strange. Suddenly, you included a series of five references you didn’t mention in all text.
They are good new references, and your manuscript is short in that. But you could have cited them in a previous item, and then they wouldn’t be introduced as the last words of the article.

 

 

Author Response

Thank You for the recommendations. I prove all formal tasks and change one of the main sources to the newest.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf