## 5 Simulation Results
As shown in Table 3, the HF3 model presents almost the same level of results as the BM and PT simulation models, meaning that if a manufacturing organization has three key managers as well as some operative employees with a lack of qualification as well as with goals only partially aligned to those of the organization, the performance and, therefore, the viability of the company is strongly damaged. As a result, a company can have the appropriate technologies, quality, maintenance, production, logistics, and IT \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Key Indicator**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Simulation Models: Cumulative Developments**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **1-BM** & **2-PT** & **3-OPM** & **4-TL** & **5-LSQ** & **6-I4.0** \\ \hline
1 & Market demand (10\({}^{3}\) products) & 326.7 & 326.7 & 326.7 & 326.7 & 326.7 & 326.7 \\ \hline
2 & Real demand (10\({}^{3}\) products) & 59.3 & 72.5 & 142.4 & 176.7 & 267.9 & 317.9 \\ \hline
3 & Production (10\({}^{3}\) products) & 55.7 & 64.5 & 121.7 & 150.7 & 235.3 & 291.9 \\ \hline
4 & Utilization rate (\%) & 13.8 & 16.0 & 30.4 & 37.6 & 58.8 & 73.0 \\ \hline
5 & Availability rate (\%) & 51.6 & 51.6 & 51.6 & 63.2 & 88.9 & 95.0 \\ \hline
6 & Performance rate (\%) & 44.3 & 44.1 & 79.6 & 78.3 & 83.4 & 99.6 \\ \hline
7 & Quality rate (\%) & 87.5 & 87.1 & 84.3 & 87.0 & 92.4 & 93.0 \\ \hline
8 & Stocks (10\({}^{6}\) products) & 3.5 & 4.7 & 10.6 & 12.0 & 1.5 & 1.9 \\ \hline
9 & Labor productivity & & & & & & \\  & (products/empl. \(\times\) year) & 11.1 & 12.9 & 24.3 & 30.2 & 47.1 & 58.4 \\ \hline
10 & Production lead time (days) & 192 & 182 & 124 & 102 & 67 & 47 \\ \hline
11 & Cumulated service level (\%) & 48.6 & 61.0 & 82.4 & 88.4 & 90.2 & 96.6 \\ \hline
12 & Sales (million USD) & 600 & 731 & 1630 & 2171 & 3890 & 4865 \\ \hline
13 & Operational costs (million USD) & 546 & 614 & 931 & 1017 & 517 & 561 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Simulation results for the simulation models with cumulative functional developments. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Key Indicator**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Simulation Models: Human Factor Malfunctions Versus 6-I4.0**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **7-HF3** & **8-HF2** & **9-HF1** & **6-I4.0** \\ \hline
1 & Market demand (10\({}^{3}\) products) & 326,738 & 326,738 & 326,738 & 326,738 \\ \hline
2 & Real demand (10\({}^{3}\) products) & 82,699 & 243,634 & 276,302 & 317,942 \\ \hline
3 & Production (10\({}^{3}\) products) & 72,282 & 208,998 & 243,818 & 291,922 \\ \hline
4 & Utilization rate (\%) & 18.0 & 52.3 & 61.0 & 73.0 \\ \hline
5 & Availability rate (\%) & 93.0 & 95.0 & 95.0 & 95.0 \\ \hline
6 & Performance rate (\%) & 101.8 & 100.2 & 100.0 & 99.6 \\ \hline
7 & Quality rate (\%) & 84.8 & 88.7 & 92.3 & 93.0 \\ \hline
8 & Stocks (10\({}^{6}\) products) & 5.2 & 10.8 & 13.4 & 1.9 \\ \hline
9 & Labor productivity & & & & & \\  & (products/empl. \(\times\) year) & 14.5 & 41.8 & 48.8 & 58.4 \\ \hline
10 & Production lead time (days) & 183 & 78 & 64 & 47 \\ \hline
11 & Cumulated service level (\%) & 67.2 & 93.2 & 97.6 & 96.6 \\ \hline
12 & Sales (million USD) & 829 & 3379 & 4043 & 4865 \\ \hline
13 & Operational costs (million USD) & 642 & 975 & 1126 & 561 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Simulation results for the high demand level scenario. systems, but none of them will be valid for the overall system performance if the other functional factors, such as the human factor, are not balanced and aligned. Otherwise, the manufacturing organization will converge to an equilibrium that is far from the optimum rendering the improvements and developments in other functions non-useful. Thus, if new equipment, new methods, new systems are underutilized, this means that investments are not providing the benefits expected and consequently the long-term sustainability of the company is compromised.