## 3 Results: Verification of the Proposed Methodology
### Outputs (Verification)  
The overall average value of the readiness level of internal logistics for the Industry 4.0 concept across all evaluated industrial enterprises was one of the final values obtained by data analysis. This value in terms of arithmetic means is shown in Figure 1.  
This value includes all evaluated indicators and the resulting value will provide the company with a realistic picture of internal logistics readiness. However, the overall average preparedness value needs to be supplemented by other output information values. The methodology core was a three-level structure of internal logistics and therefore it was necessary to go deeper in the data analysis and analyze the results of sub-areas (dimensions, subdimensions, indicators).  
The first part of the structure is represented by the dimensions, of which there were a total of five, and their average values for all enterprises are shown in Figure 2.  
Figure 1: The total average value of enterprises’ preparedness level.  
The average values in Figure 2 correspond to the overall preparedness level (the value is 2.42). The average dimension values have very similar values. It can be stated that the weakest dimensions analyzed for all analyzed industrial enterprises in the Czech Republic were dimensions D3: Packaging and D4: Supply. The remaining three dimensions had similar final values with minimal differences.  
Subdimensions were the second part of the internal logistics structure and each dimension consisted of 2-3 subdimensions. The output of the further analysis was the average values of individual subdimensions, again for all industrial enterprises, and these are shown in Figure 3.  
The graph in Figure 4 has more significance than the average values of the dimensions and the graph shows that the subdimensions SD2: Handling units, SD6: Material receipt and shipping, SD10: Supply technology, and SD11: Technology were among the best-rated subdimensions in terms of readiness for all companies. supply and SD12: Information provision of material recalls. The lowest values were for the subdimensions that belonged to dimension D3: Packaging, and this underlines the low average value from the previous graph. Other weaknesses across companies were SD1: Handling technology and SD13: Method of identification.  
Each subdimension consisted of 3\(-\)4 indicators. From the graph of values of all indicators it is clear that lowest average value was for indicators in the D3: Packaging dimension, namely indicators U21 (Degree of automation), U27 (Attitude of company to packaging management), and U29 (Environmental aspects). Other indicators that had a lower level and thus potential options to increase readiness were in dimension D2: Storage.  
The analyzed outputs from methodology represent aggregated data (average values supplemented by several values occurrences) (Figure 4). As can be seen from the graph, level 2 (481\(\times\)) was followed by level 3 (396\(\times\)) as the most assigned during the input and interview phases. The absolute minimums were levels 0 and 5. Level 2 and level 3 is clear. Then level 1 is selected, and level 4 had an even smaller number of occurrences. Figure 5 represents the total number of dimension level value occurrences for all enterprises  
A slightly more detailed overview of assigned levels frequency is provided in Figure 6, which is a graph showing the number of occurrences of level values for subdimensions.  
Figure 2: Average values of dimension levels of all companies.  
Figure 4: Total number of occurrences of level values for all enterprises.  
Figure 3: Average values of subdimension levels of all enterprises.