# Readiness of Enterprises in Czech Republic to Implement Industry 4.0: Index of Industry 4.0
## 4 Results
### Verification and Evaluation of Industry 4.0 Index
#### 4.3.1 Industry 4.0 Index Distribution  
The data of the first and second wave of the research were used to evaluate the data distribution. Figure 3 below shows the enterprises at levels 1-3, which are color-coded (each enterprise is shown three times on the graph), with the \(y\)-axis showing the values of each level and the \(x\)-axis showing the total Vpi4 as a percentage. Figure 2(a) shows how the levels overlap; however, most of the enterprises reached the higher level 1, while the second and third levels featured a score pf zero. The distribution of the enterprises in the second wave of Figure 2(b) was similar. It is interesting to note, for example, that one enterprise achieved a very high overall Vpi4 at 88%, while, at the same time, it had a level 1 score of 93%, level 2 score of 95%, and level 3 score of 67% (three dots to the right of the graph). In total, five companies in the first wave achieved absolutely zero values in Vpi4. Furthermore, the VPi4 index distribution was statistically compared, using the samples from the first wave and the second wave of the research. For this reason, Mann-Whitney-Wilcox test statistics were used to compare the samples. Table 4 shows that, at all levels of the VPi4 index except the third  
Figure 3: Evaluation of enterprises by VPi4: (**a**) distribution of the enterprises in the first wave of the research; (**b**) distribution of enterprises in the second wave of the research. Figure 2: Vpi4 index. level, the results of the first and second wave research were identical. Differences were found only in the third level with a \(p\)-value = 0.0267. However, the third level of the index is very specific, as higher ranking at this level is often more difficult for enterprises to achieve after the first two levels are met. The enterprises in the second wave achieved a higher level of the VPi4 index at level 3 than in the first wave. The results also show that there was a difference in self-perception and self-assessment of the use of Industry 4.0 for the enterprises in the first and second waves. The results of the comparison of the index results in the first and second waves of the research show that hypothesis H1\({}_{0}\) cannot be rejected, as the results of both surveys showed the same distributions. 3.2 Relation of the Index to the Subjective Perception of the Level of Industry 4.0 by the Enterprises  
The relation of the index to the subjective perception of the level of Industry 4.0 by the enterprises was carried out in both waves of the research. The correlation between VPi4 index (%) and the scale on which enterprises evaluated themselves in relation to Industry 4.0 from 1-5 was analyzed (1--we do not have Industry 4.0; 5--we fully have Industry 4.0). Pearson and Spearman coefficients were used for testing. Firstly, a coefficient of determination of \(R^{2}\) = 0.2784 was calculated; thus, the dependence explained 28% of the variability of the number of points. On average, the enterprises rated themselves 2.1 with Industry 4.0, with an average rating of the recalculated VPi4 index being 45% more similar to the score of 3. One-quarter of enterprises had a VPi4 value below 29%, with the upper quarter having a value above 60%. In terms of their own perception, 50% of the enterprises ranged from 1-3 on a five-point scale. As also reported by the minima and maxima, some of the enterprises did not achieve any points in the VPi4 index. The maximum was 88% and 34 points in VPi4. The normalization of the data of both variables was verified by the Shapiro-Wilk test, with the \(p\)-value of VPi4% = 0.09 assuming the normality of the data, as also shown by the histogram. With the perception of Industry 4.0 by the enterprises, the \(p\)-value test was close to zero; therefore, the normality of the data was not assumed. The results of the correlation of both variables are shown in Table 5. Here, on the basis of a \(p\)-value = 0.0000, the null hypothesis of independence was rejected in favor of the alternative using the Pearson coefficient at the significance level of 5%.