The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

Industry 4.0
Industry 4.0 and digital supply and DSCCs
chain capabilities
A framework for understanding digitalisation
challenges and opportunities 1761
Maciel M. Queiroz Received 28 December 2018
Post Graduate Program in Business Management, Revised 14 May 2019
Paulista University – UNIP, São Paulo, Brazil 6 September 2019
Accepted 31 October 2019
Susana Carla Farias Pereira
Department of Production and Operations Management,
Fundação Getulio Vargas, FGV – EAESP, São Paulo, Brazil, and
Renato Telles and Marcio C. Machado
Post Graduate Program in Business Management,
Paulista University – UNIP, São Paulo, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – The Industry 4.0 phenomenon is bringing unprecedented disruptions for all traditional business
models and hastening the need for a redesign and digitisation of activities. In this context, the literature
concerning the digital supply chain (DSC) and its capabilities are in the early stages. To bridge this gap, the
purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for digital supply chain capabilities (DSCCs).
Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses a narrative literature approach, based on the main
Industry 4.0 elements, supply chain and the emerging literature concerning DSC disruptions, to build an
integrative framework to shed light on DSCCs.
Findings – The study identifies seven basic capabilities that shape the DSCC framework and six main
enabler technologies, derived from 13 propositions.
Research limitations/implications – The proposed framework can bring valuable insights for future
research development, although it has not been tested yet.
Practical implications – Managers, practitioners and all involved in the digitalisation phenomenon can
utilise the framework as a starting point for other business digitalisation projects.
Originality/value – This study contributes to advancing the DSC literature, providing a well-articulated
discussion and a framework regarding the capabilities, as well as 13 propositions that can generate valuable
insights for other studies.
Keywords Supply chain disruption, Digital capabilities, Digital supply network,
Supply chain digitalization
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
The unprecedented development of information and communication technology (ICT) (Alshawi
et al., 2003) has led to a phenomenon known as digital disruption. In this context, traditional
business models based predominantly on physical activities are being disrupted and shifting
towards digitalisation. The digitalisation process has consequences for all industries
(Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018). Therefore, digital disruption affects not only organisations’
business models; it also significantly affects all segments of society, including new relationships
and interactions with organisations and people (World Economic Forum, 2016a).
Moreover, ICT has enabled a Fourth Industrial Revolution known as Industry 4.0 Benchmarking: An International
(Barreto et al., 2017; Hofmann and Rüsch, 2017), with its roots in German industry (Hecklau Journal
Vol. 28 No. 5, 2021
et al., 2016) and supported mainly by the Internet of Things (IoT) and cyber-physical system pp. 1761-1782
(CPS) technologies (Qin et al., 2016). This has led organisations around the world to © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
reconsider digitalisation as a necessity for which strategies must be developed. DOI 10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0435
BIJ Thus ICT also has been supported by the transformation of organisations’ relationships
28,5 with their network. For example, smart cities present challenges for supply chain design
(Kumar et al., 2016) in order to support new operations business models, connecting
customers and organisations more efficiently (Li et al., 2016; Qin et al., 2016).
In this context, digital disruption is already affecting supply chains and requiring new
manufacturing strategies (Holmström and Partanen, 2014), entailing a shift from traditional
1762 production planning and control to distributed manufacturing (DM) and from large scale to
micro scale, with multiple manufacturing locations (Srai et al., 2016). Additionally, the
decentralisation of manufacturing with 3D printing applications (Kapetaniou et al., 2018; Mohr
and Khan, 2015), also known as additive manufacturing (Strong et al., 2018), is unlocking the
potential for mass customisation (Srai et al., 2016). Thus, traditional supply chains will
eventually face the challenge of updating to digital supply chains (DSCs) to support new
productions models, transportation modes, customer experiences and relationships, based on,
among other things, real-time information exchange.
Recently, top consulting firms have highlighted the necessity of supply chain digitalisation
(A.T. Kearney, 2015; Accenture, 2014; Bain & Company, 2018; Boston Consulting Group, 2018;
Deloitte, 2016; Ernst & Young, 2016; McKinsey & Company, 2017; PwC, 2016; Roland Berger,
2016). Despite advancements in digitalisation, however, understanding of DSCs is in its early
stages (Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018). Consequently, previous literature has neither organised
nor discussed the digital supply chain capabilities (DSCCs) in order to support organisations
and the digitalisation of their networks. Furthermore, there is scant current literature that
includes frameworks to further understanding and support both scholars and practitioners in
rethinking supply chains in the digital age.
Therefore, the question that guides this paper is: what new capabilities are required to
support traditional supply chains becoming DSCs? Thus, this study aims to shed light on an
unexplored topic in DSCs: “capabilities”. To answer this question, this study draws on
literature covering Industry 4.0, supply chain management (SCM) and DSCs. The main
objective is to propose a DSCC framework, considering cutting-edge technologies and
interactions with human aspects, to support DSC business models.
This paper contributes to advancing the DSC literature, especially in terms of the
introduction of DSCCs as a new research stream, and with 13 propositions related to DSCCs.
The proposed framework can also provide insights for future research on DSC, as well as
providing support to managers, decision-makers and practitioners interested in gaining an
in-depth understanding of DSC disruptions.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical
underpinning and literature review, covering Industry 4.0, SCM, the digitalisation phenomena,
DSCs and DSCCs. In Section 3, an integrative framework is proposed that describes the main
interactions of the DSCCs, considering the basic capabilities and their enabler technologies.
Section 4 highlights the main managerial implications, while Section 5 details the theoretical
implications. The paper concludes with Section 6, which presents the final remarks, limitations
and future research avenues.

2. Theoretical underpinning
2.1 Industry 4.0
Industry 4.0 is a broad term used to refer to the Fourth Industrial Revolution. There is a set
of cutting-edge technologies related to Industry 4.0. In this regard, one of the main
characteristics of Industry 4.0 is smart applications (Hecklau et al., 2016; Qin et al., 2016), in
which objects (products) and machines can interact with each other, supported mainly by
the IoT, CPSs, artificial intelligence (AI), big data analytics (BDA), among others
technologies (Lee, 2015; Qin et al., 2016; Schumacher et al., 2016). In this vein, it is clear that
the components of Industry 4.0 (e.g. machines, objects, vehicles, among others) can make
their own decisions and operates autonomously (Qin et al., 2016). Industry 4.0 has entailed Industry 4.0
new relationships concerning workers, objects and systems (Hecklau et al., 2016). These and DSCCs
relationships have brought great complexity to organisations’ supply chains, mainly in
terms of rethinking and redesigning their capabilities in the digital age.
In the Industry 4.0 view, new technologies are affecting traditional supply chains and
accelerating the shift towards digitalised supply chains. In this context, the leading
technologies affecting the supply chain are, among others: IoT (Bibri, 2018; Kumar et al., 2016); 1763
CPSs (Yu et al., 2015; Zhong et al., 2017); BDA (Kache and Seuring, 2017; Strandhagen et al.,
2017); cloud computing (CC) (Korpela et al., 2017; Vazquez-Martinez et al., 2018); blockchain
(Korpela et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018); and human–robot/machine interaction (Barreto et al., 2017;
Oyekan et al., 2017). However, to achieve significant supply chain performance, organisations
must develop basic capabilities, considering the digitalisation to use these technologies and
their integration with workers, customers and suppliers through the entire supply chain.
Furthermore, organisations’ strategies are impacted by their resources and capabilities
(Grant, 1991). In this perspective, and considering the complexities generated by the digital
disruption (Kanarachos et al., 2018), all decision-makers and all types of companies are
challenged to understand in depth the supply chain capabilities. However, in a digitalisation
age, neither decision-makers nor organisations have complete awareness of what their
capabilities are or how a set of resources and capabilities can be developed and managed to
support global competition. From the supply chain digital-disruption perspective,
capabilities cannot be denied as key to supporting performance improvement.

2.2 Supply chain management (SCM)

There is no clear standard definition for the term SCM. Previous studies (LeMay et al., 2017;
Lummus and Vokurka, 1999; Mentzer et al., 2001; Stock and Boyer, 2009) have reported
scholars’ efforts to establish a well-articulated definition. For instance, Stock and Boyer
(2009) compiled 173 SCM definitions in the literature and provided the following definition:
The management of a network of relationships within a firm and between interdependent
organizations and business units consisting of material suppliers, purchasing, production facilities,
logistics, marketing, and related systems that facilitate the forward and reverse flow of materials,
services, finances and information from the original producer to final customer with the benefits of
adding value, maximizing profitability through efficiencies, and achieving customer satisfaction.
(Stock and Boyer, 2009, p. 706)
Because of the consideration of “network relationships” in the Stock and Boyer’s definition, we
believe that their approach is robust and suitable to understanding the complexities created
by the various relationships in the product/service production process. However, their
definition neither encapsulates the digital age transformation complexities nor the disruption
caused in all SCM. In the next sections, this gap is discussed, and some ideas are suggested to
improve SCM digitalisation awareness in a “smooth way”, based on the DSCC approach.

2.3 Digitalisation vs digitisation

The literature awareness about digitalisation is still limited. There is some confusion regarding
the difference between the terms digitisation and digitalisation. According to Legner et al.
(2017), digitisation refers to the process associated with converting analogue signals (physical
activities) into a digital model, while digitalisation refers to the impact of these technologies,
caused by adoption and operation, in organisational and societal perspectives. Figure 1 shows
the interactions between digitisation and digitalisation concepts.
This study uses these terms interchangeably, although emphasis is given to the digitalisation
phenomena. As reported in Figure 1, digitisation is a subset of the digitalisation concept.
Therefore, there are capabilities implications for both aspects. For instance, from the digitisation
BIJ
28,5
Digitalisation
Emphasis on adoption impacts:
organisational and societal

1764

Digitisation
Emphasis on digital
technologies

Figure 1.
Digitalisation vs
digitisation concepts
Source: Based on Legner et al. (2017)

perspective, there is a closer association with resources capabilities adoption, development and
operations. For digitalisation meanwhile, the capabilities adopted previously impact on the
supply chain (considering all stakeholders) and, consequently, can help improve organisations’
competitiveness.

2.4 Digital supply chain (DSC)

The DSC concept is still developing (Kayikci, 2018). A DSC can be defined as “an intelligent
best-fit technological system that is based on the capability of massive data disposal and
excellent cooperation and communication for digital hardware, software, and networks to
support and synchronize interaction between organizations by making services more
valuable, accessible and affordable with consistent, agile and effective outcomes”
(Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018, p. 165). This definition implies a set of ICT resources that
organisations have to combine with human resources.
In this context, the digitalisation phenomenon is already disrupting all types of supply
networks (Korpela et al., 2017; Li et al., 2016; Srai et al., 2016). Recent studies have
highlighted the importance of organisations gaining an in-depth understanding of DSC in
various contexts. For instance, Scuotto et al. (2017) studied buyer–supplier relationships
utilising ICTs in the service sector to support new partnerships and enhance transactions.
From the ICT perspective, and considering the impact on DSCs, Korpela et al. (2017) showed
how DSCs can be transformed through blockchain integration. The authors pointed out the
security improvements and reduction in transaction costs that organisations applying
blockchain technology can achieve.
Based on the automotive supply industry, Farahani et al. (2017) proposed six dimensions
for DSCs: digital performance measurement; digital IT and technology; digital suppliers;
digital production systems; digital logistics and inventory; and digital customers. One crucial
aspect of DSCs was provided by Büyüközkan and Göçer (2018) in which the DSC impacts Industry 4.0
product development through providing more information, thus leading to better integration and DSCCs
with customers’ needs and enabling efficiency, both upstream and downstream.
The digitalisation process, supported by ICTs (Li et al., 2016; Scuotto et al., 2017), has
emerged as a driver in organisations achieving competitive advantage in recent years
(Korpela et al., 2017). It can be achieved by the introduction of new business models, thanks to
digital technology adoption (Martín-Peña et al., 2018). In this sense, several industries have 1765
begun their business digitalisation process, including the retail segment (Hagberg et al., 2016;
Plomp and Batenburg, 2010), steel production (Herzog et al., 2017), the food packaging
industry (Vanderroost et al., 2017), manufacturing (Freddi, 2018; Strong et al., 2018) and the
construction industry (Hautala et al., 2017). As a consequence, organisations have been
challenged to develop a set of DSC capabilities to support the digitalisation process gradually,
but continuously.

2.5 Digital supply chain capability (DSCC)

Similar to the lack of clarity regarding the DSC concept, the current literature does not yet
offer a well-articulated definition to DSCC. DSCC, when highlighted by the literature, is
discussed only from fragmented perspectives. For example, Srai et al. (2016) reported the
necessity for organisations to develop the infrastructural capability to support DM. Moreover,
to help the development of all DSCC capabilities, workers’ capability is mandatory and can be
considered as a critical resource. Consequently, supply chain performance can be enhanced by
workers’ capabilities management (Gunasekaran et al., 2017).
Based on the current DSC literature, and supported by the Industry 4.0’s main ideas, this
study defines DSCC as: “A set of ICT resources that an organisation uses to interact with
their network in order to shift physical activities to digital, applied in an integrated form
both in physical and digital activities to minimise resource consumption and support
productivity improvement, network visibility, and real-time feedback, including tools for
custom production and suppliers’ cooperation in all stages of the network, supported by
strong data-management techniques and skills”.
This definition implies not only organisations’ internal capabilities development, but also
takes into account the importance and impact of the organisations’ capabilities, combined
with the supply chain members. The definition of DSCC encapsulates a set of capabilities
that is necessary for organisations to develop, maintain, improve and innovate to increase
their levels of competitiveness in the digital era.
The level of DSCC competitiveness for any organisation is a function of the internal
and external capabilities integration. In this landscape, it is clear that the integration level
of the organisations’ basic capabilities with the supply chain members influences the
organisation’s supply chain performance. In this perspective, one significant consequence of
this integration is highlighted in Figure 2 as “critical digital supply chain integration”
(CDSCI). CDSCI is an intersection of the ICTs’ capabilities, workers’ capabilities and
stakeholders’ capabilities.
As shown in Figure 2, for organisations to understand their DSCC, there is a previous
stage in which three sets of capabilities have to be developed; these dimensions work as a
base to support strategies related to their operations, considering the digitalisation
benefits and complexities. However, if any dimension has not achieved a mature level of
understanding and operationalisation, an imbalance will arise. As a consequence, DSCC
runs the risk of not meeting the desired performance levels. To implement DSCC in a
balanced way, this paper’s proposed integrative framework maps the primary variables
associated with DSCC taking into account the sustainability perspective. That is,
organisations need to develop an integrative view of the relationship between the main
resources (Sangwan et al., 2018).
BIJ
28,5
Information and
communication
technologies – ICT

1766
CDSCI

Workers
capabilities Stakeholders
Figure 2.
Critical digital supply
chain integration
(CDSCI)

3. Methodology
In order to develop a framework, we followed a narrative literature review approach
(Secundo et al., 2019). This methodology’s main characteristic is the wide approach to the
information sources available and the research question (Christenson et al., 2017).
Traditionally, the narrative review of the literature can be used to develop conceptual
frameworks and propositions and to consolidate the literature background (Neumann, 2017).
Recently, the narrative review of the literature has been used in several fields with different
purposes (Apostolakis et al., 2015; Neumann, 2017; Ogbeiwi, 2018; van der Meij et al., 2017).
A detailed description of the steps adopted to develop the framework is provided in the
following sub-sections.

3.1 Proposing an integrative framework for DSCC

We performed a search on leading databases (i.e. Emerald Insight, ScienceDirect, Taylor &
Francis Online and Wiley Online Library), employing the terms “DSC” and “Industry 4.0”.
Since our search was “open”, hundreds of articles appeared, and we filtered initially
considering the title and, in sequence, the abstract in which the context had an adherence
with DSC, Industry 4.0 technologies, or logistics. We considered article papers, proceedings,
and book chapters published in English. Because these topics are recent, we did not restrict
the search to any specific years.
In order to develop the framework, the following assumptions were considered:
(1) Industry 4.0-related technologies are not consolidated yet. Due to the Industry 4.0
technologies recent emergence (Liao et al., 2017), the main technologies are evolving
daily. In this regard, there are several challenges. For instance, the ICT infrastructure
still not ready to support the companies digital transformation (Xu et al., 2018). Thus,
the proposed framework can bring insights about the ICT impact on an organisation’s
digital transformation planning.
(2) The DSC is in the early stages. Following the disruptive phenomenon of Industry
4.0, DSC is in its first steps of development. Thus, according to Büyüközkan and
Göçer (2018), the main challenges associated with the DSC implementation are lack
of planning, collaboration, information sharing and integration and wrong demand
forecast. Hence, more DSC literature development is urgently needed.
 (3) The awareness of digitalisation and digitisation are limited in the SCM. Due to the DSC Industry 4.0
be a recent approach in SCM, both, scholars and practitioners are in the stage of gaining and DSCCs
in-depth concepts to understand and support strategies related to DSC (Büyüközkan and
Göçer, 2018).
Figure 3 highlights the approach that supported the emergence of the proposed framework.
First, anchored by the Industry 4.0-related literature, we drafted the idea of the DSCC. After
that, by employing the DSC emerging literature, we modelled the final framework containing a 1767
set of capabilities and enablers.
Table I shows the capabilities, and the main literature used to derive them. In the same
line of thought, Table II points out the literature to support the enablers. Additionally,
following Bartnik and Park (2018), this study offers some research propositions that can
bring valuable insights both for both academia and practitioners. DSCCs identified in the
literature analysis are highlighted in Figure 4.
The basic capabilities of the DSCC framework can be classified as ICT policies, worker
policies, supplier integration, customer integration, warehouse capabilities, transportation
and smart production. Besides capabilities, our analysis also identified some enablers
which support the basic capabilities: BDA; blockchain; AI; CC; CPSs and IoT. The
framework provides an overview concerning the importance of the development of the
basic capabilities required to survive in a digital era; it also indicates that these basic
capabilities require six fundamental enablers that allow high levels of integration with
others supply chain members.

Industry 4.0
Digital supply literature
chain
literature

Figure 3.
Capabilities Digital supply chain
and enablers capabilities (DSCC)
identification framework
development
BIJ Capabilities Derived from
28,5
ICT policies Scuotto et al. (2017), Giotopoulos et al. (2017), Bibri and Krogstie (2017),
Trentesaux et al. (2016)
Worker policies Gunasekaran et al. (2017), Sivathanu and Pillai (2018), Waibel et al. (2017),
Erol et al. (2016)
Supplier integration Korpela et al. (2017), Scuotto et al. (2017), Yu (2015), Chen (2019)
1768 Customer integration Li et al. (2016), Zhong et al. (2017), Kunz et al. (2017), Bhattacharjya et al. (2016)
Warehouse capabilities World Economic Forum (2016b), Lee et al. (2018), Herzog et al. (2018)
Table I. Transportation Stock and Seliger (2016), World Economic Forum (2016b), Van
Capabilities analytical Brummelen et al. (2018)
support Smart production Waibel et al. (2017), Davis et al. (2015), Kibira et al. (2016), Hozdić (2015)

Enablers Derived from

Big data analytics (BDA) Akter et al. (2016), Gupta and George (2016), Jeble et al. (2018), Kache and Seuring
(2017), Phillips-Wren and Hoskisson (2015), Queiroz and Telles (2018), Suciu et al.
(2016), Verma and Singh (2017), Wamba et al. (2017)
Blockchain (BCT) Al-Saqaf and Seidler (2017), Li et al. (2018), Queiroz and Fosso Wamba (2019),
Queiroz et al. (2019), Scott et al. (2017), Toyoda et al. (2017), Wu et al. (2017)
Artificial intelligence (AI) Kanarachos et al. (2018), Van Brummelen et al. (2018), Plastino and Purdy (2018)
Cloud computing (CC) Vazquez-Martinez et al. (2018), Yu et al. (2015), Suciu et al. (2016), Caggiano (2018),
Hsu et al. (2014)
Cyber-physical Yu et al. (2015), Lee et al. (2015), Zamfirescu et al. (2013), Zhou et al. (2016),
Table II. systems (CPS) Lu and Xu (2018)
Enablers analytical Internet of Things (IoT) Bibri (2018), Porter and Heppelmann (2014), Savarino et al. (2018), Suciu et al.
support (2016), Romaniuk (2018), Del Giudice (2016)

3.2 DSCC: basic capabilities

3.2.1 ICT policies. ICT is an essential resource for any DSC strategy. From this perspective,
in the digital age, ICTs are fundamental not only to digitising current business models; ICTs’
true impact lies in their contribution to developing new operations models. Consequently,
ICTs enable new relationship models (Scuotto et al., 2017) in which all supply chain
members can interact with each other faster, improving solving-problem processes and
bringing more certain information to support the decision-making process. In the DSCC
framework, all basic capabilities interact with each other, and with all enablers. Thus, ICT
policies are one of the most important drivers in organisations’ digitalisation. Therefore, this
study suggests the following proposition:
P1. Organisations’ ICT policies have a positive influence on their DSCCs and
consequently improve supply chain performance.
3.2.2 Worker policies. The human factor is also key to supply chain performance
(Gunasekaran et al., 2017), and needs to be managed as a strategic resource (Das and Kodwani,
2018). From a DSC perspective, although a large number of activities may be digitised,
talented professionals remain a strategic resource, and the requirement for new human
capabilities poses a challenge to organisations’ development. For example, how can companies
support data scientists’ development? What is the role of the organisation following job losses
resulting from the digitalisation process? As reported in Figure 2, human capabilities
(Sivathanu and Pillai, 2018) are an essential resource in supporting DSC integration.
 Industry 4.0
Basic capabilities and DSCCs
P8 Digital Supply P11
Big Data Cloud
Analytics Chain Computing
Capabilities

P1 ICT’s policies 1769

P9
P2 Workers policies P12
Cyber-
Blockchain Physical
P3 Suppliers integration
Systems
P4 Customers integration

P5 Warehouse
P10 P13
Artificial
P6 Transportation Internet of
Intelligence
Things Figure 4.
and workers P7 Smart production Digital supply chain
capability (DSCC)
Enabler technologies Enabler technologies framework

Consequently, IT skills is a fundamental capability in DSCs (Waibel et al., 2017). Hence, this
study suggests the following proposition:
P2. Organisations’ digital policies concerning workers have a positive influence on their
DSCCs and consequently improve supply chain performance.
3.2.3 Supplier integration. The advent of DSCs has led to new models for organisations’
integration with all their stakeholders in a supply network. According to Korpela et al.
(2017), DSCs enable a multi-stakeholder perspective, in which the competition paradigm
shifts towards collaboration. In this sense, DSCs enable effective relationships (Scuotto et al.,
2017) and increased transparency and security in transactions (Korpela et al., 2017). Also,
organisations’ integration with suppliers is fundamental to value co-creation ( Jääskeläinen
and Thitz, 2018). Therefore, this study suggests the following proposition:
P3. Organisations’ digital integration with suppliers has a positive influence on their
DSCCs and consequently improves supply chain performance.
3.2.4 Customer integration. Similar to the supplier integration (Yu, 2015), DSCs enable new
forms of customer integration and relationships. DSCs promote not only more information
about the customers; the most important thing is the increased accuracy of this information
(Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018) thanks to smart-technology adoption. Consequently, DSCs entail
smart connections between organisations and their customers (Li et al., 2016). Furthermore,
customer integration remains a vital subject related to organisations’ performance (Afshan and
Motwani, 2018). Hence, the current production paradigms are already being disrupted. Thus,
this study proposes:
P4. Organisations’ digital integration with customers has a positive influence on their
DSCCs and consequently improves supply chain performance.
3.2.5 Warehouse capabilities. Warehouse capabilities is a significant resource in any DSC
strategy. Shared warehouses (World Economic Forum, 2016b) used in a smart-asset perspective
will be increasingly available thanks to the digitalisation paradigm. With the intense use of
augmented reality (Masoni et al., 2017) and virtual reality, DSCs are enabling a new generation
of smart warehouses. The virtual picking activity is already a reality, utilising, for example,
QR codes and smart glasses. With virtual reality, workers’ training can be more efficient.
BIJ Also, virtual reality enables the simulation of warehouse operations and enables interaction in
28,5 real-time with the supply network. Therefore, this study proposes:
P5. Digitisation of the warehouse has a positive influence on organisations’ DSCCs and
consequently improves supply chain performance.
3.2.6 Transportation. Transportation is one of the most traditional fields of logistics
1770 and SCM. From a DSCC perspective, transportation is now reshaping business models
(Van Brummelen et al., 2018). For instance, with shared capabilities (World Economic Forum,
2016b), network transportation will utilise resources more efficiently. Regarding internal
transportation, autonomous guided vehicles (AGVs) (Stock and Seliger, 2016) has shifting the
transportation activities from manual to smart. Moreover, autonomous vehicles such as trucks
and drones (World Economic Forum, 2016b) are enabling new capabilities for transportation.
Hence, this study suggests the following proposition:
P6. The digitisation of transportation activities has a positive influence on organisations’
DSCCs and consequently improves supply chain performance.
3.2.7 Smart production. In a DSCC framework, smart production systems (SPS) can control
and monitor the entire products lifecycle (Davis et al., 2015; Kibira et al., 2016). These capabilities
can transform traditional products into smart products (Savarino et al., 2018), for which the
entire lifecycle can be managed (Erol et al., 2016; Stock and Seliger, 2016). In this sense, the
production systems will be more responsive, implying real-time decisions, according to demand
patterns. Supported mainly by IoT (Bibri, 2018) and CPSs (Zhong et al., 2017), machines and
various smart connected objects can make their own decisions (Lee, 2015). However, with the
increase in decentralised manufacturing (Kohtala, 2015), traditional production systems are now
challenged to meet smaller manufacturing demands at various locations (Srai et al., 2016).
Therefore, this study suggests the following proposition:
P7. The digitisation of production system activities has a positive influence on
organisations’ DSCCs and consequently improves supply chain performance.

3.3 Enabler technologies

This study also identified six main enabler technologies of the basic capabilities to support a
traditional supply chain becoming a DSC. Although we have identified several DSC enablers
in the literature, we have only selected those enabler technologies identified as having
relationship with DSCCs, namely BDA, blockchain, AI, CC, CPSs and IoT (Büyüközkan and
Göçer, 2018; Ivanov et al., 2019).
These technologies can be considered as enablers of DSCCs due to their influence in the
digitalisation process. For instance, BDA has been shown to improve firms’ performance and
competitive advantage (Akter et al., 2016; Wamba et al., 2017); Blockchain in supply chains
(Queiroz and Fosso Wamba, 2019; Queiroz et al., 2019) has been provoking disruptive change
given in intra- and inter-organisational contexts; regarding interaction between AI and workers,
several organisations believe in its potential and are investing large amounts of money.
However, we believe that there is a critical and unexplored issue regarding this relationship,
namely that CC services is a critical enabler due to its ability to integrate resources in the
digitalisation context, enabling a more accurate monitoring of companies’ internal activities and
their SCM network (Porter and Heppelmann, 2014). In the Industry 4.0 era, CPS have an
essential function of integrating the systems and the physical infrastructure (Wang et al., 2016).
In the DSC context, we consider these systems as a fundamental enabler because of the various
interactions between smart objects. The final enabler identified in this study was IoT, which
is of great importance, especially in providing feedback (Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018) in
terms of the (smart) product’s information and, consequently, contributing to continuous Industry 4.0
improvement in organisations. In the following sub-sections, we provide a detailed description and DSCCs
of these technologies.
3.3.1 Big data analytics (BDA) policies. In a DSC age, data are one of the most critical
assets. Because of this, techniques for data storage, management and analysis represent a
fundamental DSCC. Recent literature regarding big data (Phillips-Wren and Hoskisson,
2015) and BDA capabilities (BDAC) has achieved a significant maturity level (Akter et al., 1771
2016; Gupta and George, 2016; Jeble et al., 2018; Wamba et al., 2017). In this context, previous
studies have demonstrated the positive impact of BDAC on firm performance (Akter et al.,
2016; Wamba et al., 2017). BDA is conceptualised viewed in a 5V’s perspective (volume,
velocity, variety, veracity and value) (Queiroz and Telles, 2018; Verma and Singh, 2017;
Wamba et al., 2017). Therefore, for an organisation to create value, DSCCs must collect and
analyse data in as short a time as possible, although, for the most organisations, analysing
all data generated by their supply network in real-time may seem like a Utopian dream.
Thus, this study proposes the following:
P8. Organisations’ BDA policies have a positive influence on their DSCCs and
consequently improve supply chain performance.
3.3.2 Blockchain-related policies. The blockchain is disrupting all traditional business models
(Scott et al., 2017). Based on the disintermediation process, costs minimisation and process
efficiency are transforming organisations and their traditional business models (Wang et al.,
2019; Queiroz et al., 2019). Blockchain technology refers to a distributed digital ledger
(Al-Saqaf and Seidler, 2017) in which all transactions are shared within a tamper-proof
network, i.e. the transactions cannot be modified. The blockchain is transforming the
traceability of goods (Wu et al., 2017) and improving anti-counterfeiting measures (Toyoda
et al., 2017). Another blockchain application is smart contracts. With smart contracts, supply
networks can be more agile, responsive and more economical, due to disintermediation.
Because of this, several industries have been incorporating blockchain in their DSC strategies.
Hence, this study proposes the following:
P9. Organisations’ blockchain-related policies have a positive influence on their DSCCs
and consequently improve supply chain performance.
3.3.3 Artificial intelligence (AI) and interaction with workers. According to the Oxford
English Dictionary, AI refers to “The theory and development of computer systems able to
perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech
recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages”. In the context of this
paper, this means machines learning autonomously and behaving similarly to humans.
However, in terms of DSCCs, skilled workers continue to be a critical and scarce resource.
Recently, Barreto et al. (2017) highlighted the societal transformation caused by Industry 4.0
and the necessity of organisations rethinking their processes, considering human–machine
integration and interaction. In this context, Oyekan et al. (2017) proposed a method of
real-time manufacturing collaboration involving various teams at various locations. The
method can enable organisations to digitise human activities. Consequently, world-class,
real-time manufacturing will be a reality in the coming years (Oyekan et al., 2017). It is a
significant disruption associated with production systems environment, reflecting how
organisations must rethink and optimise collaboration between workers and machines.
Thus, a worker in a DSC is continuously challenged to develop new skills, as IT capabilities
(Waibel et al., 2017). Thus, this study suggests the following proposition:
P10. The degree of the interaction between workers and AI can bring positive outcomes
on organisations’ DSCCs and consequently improve supply chain performance.
BIJ 3.3.4 Cloud computing (CC). CC refers to outsourcing services associated with information
28,5 data management, including a large amount of data transactions generated by products and
services (Vazquez-Martinez et al., 2018). From this perspective, it can be seen that CC is a
critical resource for any organisation, since, in a DSC environment, all process and products
have to be smart. Additionally, previous capabilities as BDA, IoT and CPSs require much
integration with CC services, including exchanging data over the supply network. Because of
1772 this, CC has to offer high levels of integration throughout the entire product lifecycle. From the
production systems’ perspective, CC enables manufacturing-on-demand production in the
value chain (Li et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2015). Furthermore, CC can support more control, both
internally and throughout the network (Porter and Heppelmann, 2014) via remote monitoring.
Thus, safety levels can be enhanced by smart and decentralised maintenance (Waibel et al.,
2017); it is also expected that cloud integration will improve cost optimisation in DSCs
(Korpela et al., 2017). Therefore, this study proposes the following:
P11. Organisations’ CC policies have a positive influence on their DSCCs and
consequently improve supply chain performance.
3.3.5 Cyber-physical system (CPS) policies. A CPS refers to the infrastructure that integrates
both physical and cyber components. Thus, CPSs provide a network infrastructure with
embedded devices (sensors) that can self-manage their operations process and feedback with
the physical world (Wang et al., 2016). Due to smart objects and machines, CPSs can exchange
information. Consequently, CPSs and IoT applications have great synergy. In a DSCC context,
CPSs represent a crucial capability for organisations to enhance control and monitoring
operations. For instance, AGVs in various production systems is a standard CPS application, in
which it performs a set of jobs in a particular network, interacting with the physical
environment and with the cyber world. Therefore, a SPS, also known as smart factory, with
CPS capabilities can connect different objects, machines, and conveyors (Erol et al., 2016;
Lee, 2015) with the IoT. In addition, for CPSs to achieve high levels of production, incorporating
improvements to safety and information sharing over the supply network, a CC capability is
mandatory for support the processes and operations. Hence, this study proposes the following:
P12. Organisations’ CPS policies have a positive influence on their DSCCs and
consequently improve supply chain performance.
3.3.6 Internet of Things (IoT) policies. Literature regarding IoT in the capabilities context is
scarce. The IoT enables a set of objects to communicate with each other, without human
interaction. Consequently, traditional production systems can shift to a SPS. In this context,
SPS capabilities can optimise a set of resources because the products that are manufactured
are also smart. Consequently, products and services have information (Büyüközkan and
Göçer, 2018), not only to optimise their production, planning and control from an internal
perspective, but also including feedback throughout the supply network covering the entire
product lifecycle. IoT capabilities also enhance production safety because of the reduction in
human interactions (Suciu et al., 2016). According to the DSCC framework, as many tasks as
possible should be performed using IoT or a combination of human–IoT interaction to
improve DSCC performance. Thus, this study proposes the following:
P13. Organisations’ IoT policies have a positive influence on their DSCCs and consequently
improve supply chain performance.

4. Managerial and practical implications

From a practical perspective, the proposed DSCC framework can bring essential managerial
insights for practitioners and decision-makers, as well as anyone involved in the process or
interested in gaining a more in-depth understanding of the digitalisation phenomena. The Industry 4.0
DSCC framework highlights seven basic DSC capabilities and six enabler technologies that and DSCCs
interact and support these capabilities. Thus, it offers impactful, practical implications to
practitioners and decision-makers. For instance, managers need to recognise which are their
DSCCs required to operate in order to achieve improved performance and how these
capabilities integrate with their network. Thus, the framework provides a valuable
managerial contribution, in which organisations need to understanding in-depth their 1773
internal resources and how it could be integrated with external partners. Thus, the
framework provides a valuable managerial contribution, as may help managers and
organisations to develop an in-depth understanding of their internal resources and how it
could be integrated with their external partners.
Moreover, the DSCC framework points out that in the digital age era, managers are
challenged constantly to improve their awareness of these cutting-edge technologies, in order
to facilitate the adoption, implementation, and diffusion of the main technologies that support
our DSC in the SCM. In addition, since we highlighted the seven capabilities as “basic
capabilities”, managers need to understand the needs to incorporate other cutting-edge
technologies harmoniously.
Thus, managers and practitioners should concern the need to understand the dynamics
and complexities (e.g. barriers and facilitators) involved in supply chain digitalisation
adoption. That is, a critical aspect is regarding the lack of decision-makers’ awareness at
the digital disruption age, related to resources, capabilities, technologies and its
integration. In this context, the DSCC framework contributes to shedding light on the
business digitalisation phenomena for all practitioners and highlights the necessity to
remodel traditional business models.
Also, supply chain digitalisation needs a high-level integration of organisations’ internal
capabilities and those of their supply chain members. Consequently, decision-makers are
challenged to develop these capabilities in an optimised way. Although the framework
depicts the main capabilities that interact in a DSC, decision-makers have to consider the
organisation’s culture complexities when shifting their traditional business model to a
digitalised model. For example, workers’ resistance to adoption can arise at various stages
of the process. Besides, the proposed framework represents a valuable tool that can help
organisations generate insights and develop their supply chain digitalisation plan; however,
for the project to be successful, the organisation’s framework needs to integrate with their
network. Additionally, managers have to consider the costs and risks associated with a
digitalisation project.
Besides, from an Industry 4.0 perspective (Hecklau et al., 2016; Qin et al., 2016), the
framework emphasises that production systems are shifting towards a small production
scale in different nodes of the network. Consequently, digital capabilities in production
systems are essential for monitoring production in different locations. Ultimately, the final
implication is derived from the fact that the workers’ capabilities gap can negatively impact
a DSC project in term so of making it more expensive and, consequently, not achieving the
expected performance. In order to avoid this, it is suggested that organisations, prior to
initiating a DSC project, must develop a deeper understanding of the role of the “digital”
workers and their required capabilities.
In summary, from a practical perspective, the proposed framework can provide insights
for the supply chain digitalisation process. DSCCs, with their enablers identified, have
important practical implications for supply chain digitalisation and digital transformation
projects. We believe that the proposed framework can be a good starting point for
managers, consultants, and practitioners involved in supply chain digitalisation projects.
Moreover, the DSCC framework can be improved in the interaction between supply chain
members and adapted to the reality of a specific organisation’s needs and capabilities.
BIJ 5. Theoretical implications
28,5 This study has important theoretical implications for scholars interested in the digitalisation
phenomena in organisations and supply networks (Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018). The first
significant implication concerns the opportunity to shed light on the discussion regarding
DSCC practices. Considering the recent influential literature in digitalisation (Büyüközkan
and Göçer, 2018; Legner et al., 2017), our study provides significant a contribution by
1774 proposing a rational vision of the digital transformation process and capabilities in the SCM
field. Furthermore, supported by previous studies (Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018; Kayikci,
2018; Legner et al., 2017), we have developed the concept and framework of DSCCs and their
respective enablers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to formalise the
DSCC concept. In this view, it represents an important contribution to theory.
Second, this study argues that, to better understand DSCCs, an in-depth understanding
of organisations’ internal capabilities and their relationships with supply chain members in
mandatory. In this regard, previous literature has highlighted only the buyer–supplier
relationships, with ICTs aiding and supporting improvements in these transactions (Scuotto
et al., 2017). Therefore, our study significantly expands on the importance of ICTs within the
SCM field.
Third, the CDSCI (see Figure 2) introduces to the DSC literature the necessity of
organisations considering CDSCI as a success factor. Fourth, this paper introduces to the
literature a robust framework that integrates cutting-edge technologies to gain an in-depth
understanding of DSC complexities and, more specifically, to generate insights for scholars
in terms of rethinking the necessity of organisations developing new business models and,
consequently, the necessity to understand, develop, monitor and control these new
capabilities. In this context, the DSCC framework represents a starting point for scholars
and academics in the general advancement of the DSCC literature.
The fifth and final implication is related to the 13 propositions related to the framework.
The DSCC framework, anchored in the emerging DSC and Industry 4.0 literature, presents
several opportunities for scholars and practitioners to empirically test it in various scenarios
(e.g. emerging and developed countries, small, medium and large organisations, etc.). Table III
presents a summary of the propositions.

6. Final remarks and future research

This study has proposed a framework to shed light on DSCCs in response to rethinking
supply chain complexities in the age of digitalisation. This study contributes to the
literature and is also of benefit to practitioners, generating insights into the decision-making
process by developing a robust framework (DSCC) to improve the awareness of all involved
in the business digitalisation phenomena. Additionally, the DSCC framework emphasises
that, in the digital age, organisations must make significant efforts to integrate their
capabilities with their supply chain members. This implies that, if organisations focus only
on internal capabilities development, this will likely result in an unbalanced DSC that,
consequently, will not achieve the desired performance. Although DSCs involve significant
digitalisation of physical activities, ICTs can be viewed as a critical (resource) enabler
technologies (Scuotto et al., 2017), implying that organisations need to develop policies to
ensure and provide the necessary (key) resources. In this regard, the framework highlights
that, for a DSC project be successful; the human factor (Gunasekaran et al., 2017) remains as
the leading resource. Because of this, the study suggests that organisations begin DSC
projects by fist considering the human capabilities requirements. Moreover, the propositions
of this study bring a relevant contribution to the theory and practice, as also have the
potential to unlock the DSCC research stream.
Whilst this study makes significant academic and practical contributions, there are some
limitations that future studies can address. The first is related to the fact that the DSCC
Proposition Description Adapted from
Industry 4.0
and DSCCs
P1 Organisations’ ICT policies have a positive influence Scuotto et al. (2017)
on their DSCCs and consequently improve supply
chain performance
P2 Organisations’ digital policies concerning workers Gunasekaran et al. (2017), Waibel et al.
have a positive influence on their DSCCs and (2017)
consequently improve supply chain performance 1775
P3 Organisations’ digital integration with suppliers has a Korpela et al., (2017), Scuotto et al. (2017)
positive influence on their DSCCs and consequently
improves supply chain performance
P4 Organisations’ digital integration with customers has Li et al. (2016)
a positive influence on their DSCCs and consequently
improve supply chain performance
P5 Digitisation of the warehouse has a positive influence World Economic Forum (2016b)
on organisations’ DSCCs and consequently improves
supply chain performance
P6 The digitisation of transportation activities has a Stock and Seliger (2016), World
positive influence on organisations’ DSCCs and Economic Forum (2016b)
consequently improves supply chain performance
P7 The digitisation of production system activities has a Davis et al. (2015), Kibira et al. (2016), Lee
positive influence on organisations’ DSCCs and (2015), Srai et al. (2016)
consequently improves supply chain performance
P8 Organisations’ BDA policies have a positive influence Queiroz and Telles (2018), Wamba et al.
on their DSCCs and consequently improve supply (2017)
chain performance
P9 Organisations’ blockchain-related policies have a Akter et al. (2016), Al-Saqaf and Seidler
positive influence on their DSCCs and consequently (2017), Scott et al. (2017), Wu et al. (2017)
improve supply chain performance
P10 The degree of the interaction between workers and Barreto et al. (2017), Oyekan et al. (2017)
robots can bring positive outcomes on organisations’
DSCCs and consequently improve supply chain
performance
P11 Organisations’ cloud computing (CC) policies have a Li et al. (2018), Vazquez-Martinez et al.
positive influence on their DSCCs and consequently (2018), Yu et al. (2015)
improve supply chain performance
P12 Organisations’ cyber-physical system (CPS) policies Erol et al. (2016), Lee (2015), Wang et al.
have a positive influence on their DSCCs and (2016)
consequently improve supply chain performance
P13 Organisations’ Internet of Things (IoT) policies have Suciu et al. (2016)
a positive influence on their DSCCs and consequently Table III.
improve supply chain performance Summary of the
Note: DSSCs, digital supply chain capabilities propositions

framework has not yet been tested. Future studies have the opportunity to develop and
implement a conceptual model to test this framework empirically. Second, the proposed
framework does not consider the particular characteristics of the organisations that operate
in emerging and developed countries. Thereafter, scholars can expand the framework by
considering supply network differences in these countries. Third, the study does not discuss
the barriers to adoption related to the capabilities that comprise the DSCC framework. Also,
our work deals only technological enablers approach.
Researchers can, therefore, aim to identify these barriers to support the framework’s
adoption. Finally, it would be a valuable contribution to the literature can be interesting to
advance the literature if the critical success factors (Kumar and Singh, 2018) in DSC projects
and their relationship with the DSCC framework could be identified.
BIJ References
28,5 Accenture (2014), “The digital supply network: a new paradigm for supply chain management”,
available at: www.accenture.com/t20150708T025455__w__/fr-fr/_acnmedia/Accenture/
Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Local/fr-fr/PDF_5/Accenture-Digital-Supply-Network-
New-Standard-Modern-Supply-Chain-Management.pdf (accessed 15 December 2018).
Afshan, N. and Motwani, J. (2018), “The mediating role of customer related performance outcomes on
1776 the relationship between customer integration and firm performance”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 2184-2197, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-11-2016-0178.
Akter, S., Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2016), “How to improve firm
performance using big data analytics capability and business strategy alignment?”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 113-131, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.018.
Al-Saqaf, W. and Seidler, N. (2017), “Blockchain technology for social impact: opportunities and
challenges ahead”, Journal of Cyber Policy, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1080/23738871.2017.1400084.
Alshawi, S., Irani, Z. and Baldwin, L. (2003), “Editorial”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 312-324, doi: 10.1108/14635770310484953.
Apostolakis, G., van Dijk, G. and Drakos, P. (2015), “Microinsurance performance – a systematic
narrative literature review”, Corporate Governance (Bingley), Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 146-170, available
at: http://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2014-0098
A.T. Kearney (2015), “Digital supply chains: increasingly critical for competitive edge – European A.T.
Kearney/WHU Logistics Study 2015”, available at: www.atkearney.com/documents/20152/4350
77/Digital%2BSupply%2BChains.pdf/82bf637e-bfa9-5922-ce03-866b7b17a492 (accessed
15 December 2018).
Bain & Company (2018), “Build a digital supply chain that is fit for the future”, available at: www.bain.
com/Images/BAIN_BRIEF_Digital_Supply_Chain_Trends.pdf (accessed 15 December 2018).
Barreto, L., Amaral, A. and Pereira, T. (2017), “Industry 4.0 implications in logistics: an overview”,
Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 13, pp. 1245-1252, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.045.
Bartnik, R. and Park, Y. (2018), “Technological change, information processing and supply chain
integration”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 1279-1301, doi: 10.1108/
BIJ-03-2016-0039.
Bhattacharjya, J., Ellison, A. and Tripathi, S. (2016), “An exploration of logistics-related customer service
provision on Twitter: the case of e-retailers”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 46 Nos 6/7, pp. 659-680, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-0
1-2015-0007
Bibri, S.E. (2018), “The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: an analytical framework for
sensor-based big data applications for environmental sustainability”, Sustainable Cities and
Society, Vol. 38, October, pp. 230-253, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.034.
Bibri, S.E. and Krogstie, J. (2017), “ICT of the new wave of computing for sustainable urban forms: their
big data and context-aware augmented typologies and design concepts”, Sustainable Cities and
Society, Vol. 32, pp. 449-474, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.04.012
Boston Consulting Group (2018), “Turning visibility into value in digital supply chains”, available at:
http://image-src.bcg.com/Images/BCG-Turning-Visibility-into-Value-in-Digital-Supply-Chains-
Jan-2018_tcm9-181967.pdf (accessed 15 December 2018).
Büyüközkan, G. and Göçer, F. (2018), “Digital supply chain: literature review and a proposed
framework for future research”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 97, pp. 157-177, doi: 10.1016/j.
compind.2018.02.010.
Caggiano, A. (2018), “Cloud-based manufacturing process monitoring for smart diagnosis services”,
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 612-623, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2018.1425552
Chen, C. (2019), “Value creation by SMEs participating in global value chains under Industry 4.0 trend :
Case Study of Textile Industry in Taiwan”, Journal of Global Information Technology Management,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 120-145, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2019.1603512
Christenson, J.K., O’Kane, G.M., Farmery, A.K. and McManus, A. (2017), “The barriers and drivers of Industry 4.0
seafood consumption in Australia: a narrative literature review”, International Journal of and DSCCs
Consumer Studies, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 299-311, available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12342
Das, R. and Kodwani, A.D. (2018), “Strategic human resource management: a power based critique”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 1213-1231, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-09-2016-0143.
Davis, J., Edgar, T., Graybill, R., Korambath, P., Schott, B., Swink, D., Wang, J. and Wetzel, J. (2015),
“Smart manufacturing”, Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 1, 1777
pp. 141-160, doi: 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-061114-123255.
Del Giudice, M. (2016), “Discovering the Internet of Things (IoT) within the business process
management”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 263-270, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-12-2015-0173
Deloitte (2016), “The rise of the digital supply network: Industry 4.0 enables the digital transformation
of supply chains”, available at: www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/3465_
Digital-supply-network/DUP_Digital-supply-network.pdf (accessed 15 December 2018).
Ernst & Young (2016), “Digital supply chain: it’s all about that data”, available at: www.ey.com/
Publication/vwLUAssets/Digital_supply_chain_-_its_all_about_the_data/$FILE/EY-digital-
supply-chain-its-all-about-that-data-final.pdf (accessed 15 December 2018).
Erol, S., Jaeger, A., Hold, P., Ott, K. and Sihn, W. (2016), “Tangible industry 4.0: a scenario-based
approach to learning for the future of production”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 54, pp. 13-18, doi: 10.1016/
j.procir.2016.03.162.
Farahani, P., Meier, C. and Wilke, J. (2017), “Digital supply chain management agenda for the
automotive supplier industry”, in Oswald, G. and Kleinemeier, M. (Eds), Shaping the Digital
Enterprise, Springer, Cham, pp. 157-172.
Freddi, D. (2018), “Digitalisation and employment in manufacturing: pace of the digitalisation process
and impact on employment in advanced Italian manufacturing companies”, AI and Society,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 393-403, doi: 10.1007/s00146-017-0740-5.
Giotopoulos, I., Kontolaimou, A., Korra, E. and Tsakanikas, A. (2017), “What drives ICT adoption by
SMEs? Evidence from a large-scale survey in Greece”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 81,
pp. 60-69, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.007
Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for
strategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135, doi: 10.2307/
41166664.
Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N. and Rahman, S. (2017), “Improving supply chain performance
through management capabilities”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 28 Nos 6-8,
pp. 473-477, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2017.1309680.
Gupta, M. and George, J.F. (2016), “Toward the development of a big data analytics capability”,
Information and Management, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1049-1064, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004.
Hagberg, J., Sundstrom, M. and Egels-Zandén, N. (2016), “The digitalization of retailing: an exploratory
framework”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 44 No. 7,
pp. 694-712, doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-09-2015-0140.
Hautala, K., Järvenpää, M.E. and Pulkkinen, P. (2017), “Digitalization transforms the construction
sector throughout asset’s life-cycle from design to operation and maintenance”, Stahlbau, Vol. 86
No. 4, pp. 340-345, doi: 10.1002/stab.201710474.
Hecklau, F., Galeitzke, M., Flachs, S. and Kohl, H. (2016), “Holistic approach for human resource
management in industry 4.0”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 54, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.102.
Herzog, K., Winter, G., Kurka, G., Ankermann, K., Binder, R., Ringhofer, M., Maierhofer, A. and Flick, A.
(2017), “The digitalization of steel production”, BHM Berg- und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte,
Vol. 162 No. 11, pp. 504-513, doi: 10.1007/s00501-017-0673-9.
Herzog, V.N., Buchmeister, B., Beharic, A. and Gajsek, B. (2018), “Visual and optometric issues with
smart glasses in Industry 4.0 working environment”, Advances in Production Engineering &
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 417-428, available at: https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2018.4.300
BIJ Hofmann, E. and Rüsch, M. (2017), “Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as future prospects on
28,5 logistics”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 89, pp. 23-34, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2017.04.002.
Holmström, J. and Partanen, J. (2014), “Digital manufacturing-driven transformations of service supply
chains for complex products”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 421-430, doi: 10.1108/
SCM-10-2013-0387.
Hozdić, E. (2015), “Smart factory for industry 4.0: a review”, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 28-35.
1778
Hsu, P.F., Ray, S. and Li-Hsieh, Y.Y. (2014), “Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing
mechanism, and deployment model”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 474-488, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.006
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A. and Sokolov, B. (2019), “The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the
ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1488086.
Jääskeläinen, A. and Thitz, O. (2018), “Prerequisites for performance measurement supporting
purchaser-supplier collaboration”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 120-137, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-08-2016-0121.
Jeble, S., Dubey, R., Childe, S., Papadopoulos, T., Roubaud, D. and Prakash, A. (2018), “Impact of big
data & predictive analytics capability on supply chain sustainability”, International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 513-538, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-05-2017-0134.
Kache, F. and Seuring, S. (2017), “Challenges and opportunities of digital information at the intersection
of big data analytics and supply chain management”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 10-36, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-02-2015-0078.
Kanarachos, S., Christopoulos, S.-R.G. and Chroneos, A. (2018), “Smartphones as an integrated platform
for monitoring driver behaviour: the role of sensor fusion and connectivity”, Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 95, pp. 867-882, doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2018.03.023.
Kapetaniou, C., Rieple, A., Pilkington, A., Frandsen, T. and Pisano, P. (2018), “Building the layers of a
new manufacturing taxonomy: how 3D printing is creating a new landscape of production
eco-systems and competitive dynamics”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 128,
pp. 22-35, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.011.
Kayikci, Y. (2018), “Sustainability impact of digitization in logistics”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 21,
pp. 782-789, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.184.
Kibira, D., Morris, K. and Kumaraguru, S. (2016), “Methods and tools for performance assurance of
smart manufacturing systems”, Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Vol. 121, pp. 282-313, doi: 10.6028/jres.121.013.
Kohtala, C. (2015), “Addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an integrated literature
review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106, pp. 654-668, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.039.
Korpela, K., Hallikas, J. and Dahlberg, T. (2017), “Digital supply chain transformation toward
blockchain integration”, In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 4182-4191, doi: 10.24251/HICSS.2017.506.
Kumar, M., Graham, G., Hennelly, P. and Srai, J. (2016), “How will smart city production systems
transform supply chain design: a product-level investigation”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 23, pp. 7181-7192, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2016.1198057.
Kumar, R. and Singh, H. (2018), “Exploring the success factors for examining the potential of manufacturing
system output”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 1171-1193, doi: 10.1108/
BIJ-10-2016-0156.
Kunz, W., Aksoy, L., Bart, Y., Heinonen, K., Kabadayi, S., Ordenes, F.V., Sigala, M., Diaz, D. and
Theodoulidis, B. (2017), “Customer engagement in a big data world”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 161-171, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2016-0352
Lee, C.K.M., Lv, Y., Ng, K.K.H., Ho, W. and Choy, K.L. (2018), “Design and application of internet of
things-based warehouse management system for smart logistics”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 2753-2768, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020
7543.2017.1394592
Lee, J. (2015), “Smart factory systems”, Informatik-Spektrum, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 230-235, doi: 10.1007/ Industry 4.0
s00287-015-0891-z. and DSCCs
Lee, J., Bagheri, B. and Kao, H.A. (2015), “A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based
manufacturing systems”, Manufacturing Letters, Vol. 3, pp. 18-23, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001
Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Böhmann, T., Drews, P., Mädche, A., Urbach, N. and
Ahlemann, F. (2017), “Digitalization: opportunity and challenge for the business and information 1779
systems engineering community”, Business and Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 301-308, doi: 10.1007/s12599-017-0484-2.
LeMay, S., Helms, M., Kimball, B. and McMahon, D. (2017), “Supply chain management: the elusive
concept and definition”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 1425-1453, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-10-2016-0232.
Li, F., Nucciarelli, A., Roden, S. and Graham, G. (2016), “How smart cities transform operations models:
a new research agenda for operations management in the digital economy”, Production Planning
and Control, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 514-528, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2016.1147096.
Li, Z., Wang, W., Liu, G., Liu, L., He, J. and Huang, G. (2018), “Toward open manufacturing a cross-
enterprises knowledge and services exchange framework based on blockchain and edge
computing”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 303-320, doi: 10.1108/
IMDS-04-2017-0142.
Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E.d.F.R. and Ramos, L.F.P. (2017), “Past, present and future of
Industry 4.0 – a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 3609-3629, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576.
Lu, Y. and Xu, X. (2018), “Resource virtualization: a core technology for developing cyber-physical
production systems”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 47, pp. 128-140, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.05.003
Lummus, R.R. and Vokurka, R.J. (1999), “Defining supply chain management: a historical perspective
and practical guidelines”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 11-17,
doi: 10.1108/02635579910243851.
McKinsey & Company (2017), “Digital transformation: raising supply-chain performance to new
levels”, available at: www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/digital-
transformation-raising-supply-chain-performance-to-new-levels (accessed 15 December 2018).
Martín-Peña, L.M., Díaz-Garrido, E. and Sánchez-López, J.M. (2018), “The digitalization and
servitization of manufacturing: a review on digital business models”, Strategic Change, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 91-99, doi: 10.1002/jsc.2184.
Masoni, R., Ferrise, F., Bordegoni, M., Gattullo, M., Uva, A.E., Fiorentino, M., Carrabba, E. and
Donato, M.D. (2017), “Supporting remote maintenance in industry 4.0 through augmented
reality”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 11, pp. 1296-1302, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.257.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25,
doi: 10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.tb00001.x.
Mohr, S. and Khan, O. (2015), “3D printing and its disruptive impacts on supply chains of the future”,
Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 11, pp. 20-25, doi: 10.5437/08956308X5606193.
Neumann, F. (2017), “Antecedents and effects of emotions in strategic decision-making: a literature
review and conceptual model”, Management Review Quarterly, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 175-200,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-017-0127-1
Ogbeiwi, O. (2018), “General concepts of goals and goal-setting in healthcare: a narrative review”, Journal
of Management and Organization, pp. 1-18, available at: http://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.11
Oyekan, J., Prabhu, V., Tiwari, A., Baskaran, V., Burgess, M. and Mcnally, R. (2017), “Remote real-time
collaboration through synchronous exchange of digitised human–workpiece interactions”,
Future Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 67, pp. 83-93, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2016.08.012.
BIJ Phillips-Wren, G. and Hoskisson, A. (2015), “An analytical journey towards big data”, Journal of
28,5 Decision Systems, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 87-102, doi: 10.1080/12460125.2015.994333.
Plastino, E. and Purdy, M. (2018), “Game changing value from Artificial Intelligence: eight strategies”,
Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 16-22, doi: 10.1108/SL-11-2017-0106.
Plomp, M.G.A. and Batenburg, R.S. (2010), “Measuring chain digitisation maturity: an assessment of
Dutch retail branches”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 227-237, doi: 10.1108/
1780 13598541011039983.
Porter, M.E. and Heppelmann, J.E. (2014), “How smart, connected products are transforming competition”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92 No. 11, pp. 64-88, doi: 10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.02913.
PwC (2016), “Industry 4.0: how digitalization makes the supply chain more efficient, agile, and
customer-focused”, available at: www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/Industry4.0.pdf
(accessed 15 December 2018).
Qin, J., Liu, Y. and Grosvenor, R. (2016), “A categorical framework of manufacturing for industry 4.0
and beyond”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 52, pp. 173-178, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.08.005.
Queiroz, M.M. and Fosso Wamba, S. (2019), “Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: an
empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 46, pp. 70-82, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.021.
Queiroz, M.M. and Telles, R. (2018), “Big data analytics in supply chain and logistics: an empirical
approach”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 767-783, doi: 10.1108/
IJLM-05-2017-0116.
Queiroz, M.M., Telles, R. and Bonilla, S.H. (2019), “Blockchain and supply chain management
integration: a systematic review of the literature”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, doi: 10.1108/SCM-03-2018-0143.
Roland Berger (2016), “2016 logistics study on digital business models”, available at: www.
rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_logistics_final_web_251016.pdf
(accessed 15 December 2018).
Romaniuk, R.S. (2018), “IoT – review of critical issues”, International Journal of Electronics and
Telecommunications, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 95-102, available at: https://doi.org/10.24425/118153
Sangwan, K.S., Bhakar, V. and Digalwar, A.K. (2018), “Sustainability assessment in manufacturing
organizations”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 994-1027, doi: 10.1108/
BIJ-08-2017-0227.
Savarino, P., Abramovici, M., Göbel, J.C. and Gebus, P. (2018), “Design for reconfiguration as fundamental
aspect of smart products”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 70, pp. 374-379, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2018.01.007.
Schumacher, A., Erol, S. and Sihn, W. (2016), “A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness
and maturity of manufacturing enterprises”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 52, pp. 161-166, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.040
Scott, B., Loonam, J. and Kumar, V. (2017), “Exploring the rise of blockchain technology: towards distributed
collaborative organizations”, Strategic Change, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 423-428, doi: 10.1002/jsc.2142.
Scuotto, V., Caputo, F., Villasalero, M. and Del Giudice, M. (2017), “A multiple buyer–supplier
relationship in the context of SMEs’ digital supply chain management”, Production Planning &
Control, Vol. 28 No. 16, pp. 1378-1388, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2017.1375149.
Secundo, G., Toma, A., Schiuma, G. and Passiante, G. (2019), “Knowledge transfer in open innovation”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 144-163, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-06-2017-0173.
Sivathanu, B. and Pillai, R. (2018), “Smart HR 4.0 – how industry 4.0 is disrupting HR”, Human Resource
Management International Digest, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 7-11, doi: 10.1108/HRMID-04-2018-0059.
Srai, J.S., Kumar, M., Graham, G., Phillips, W., Tooze, J., Ford, S., Beecher, P., Raj, B., Gregory, M.,
Tiwari, M.K., Ravi, B., Neely, A., Shankar, R., Charnley, F. and Tiwari, A. (2016), “Distributed
manufacturing: scope, challenges and opportunities”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 54 No. 23, pp. 6917-6935, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2016.1192302.
Stock, J.R. and Boyer, S.L. (2009), “Developing a consensus definition of supply chain management: a Industry 4.0
qualitative study”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, and DSCCs
Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 690-711, doi: 10.1108/09600030910996323.
Stock, T. and Seliger, G. (2016), “Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in industry 4.0”, Procedia
CIRP, Vol. 40, pp. 536-541, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.129.
Strandhagen, J.O., Vallandingham, L.R., Fragapane, G., Strandhagen, J.W., Stangeland, A.B.H. and
Sharma, N. (2017), “Logistics 4.0 and emerging sustainable business models”, Advances in 1781
Manufacturing, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 359-369, doi: 10.1007/s40436-017-0198-1.
Strong, D., Kay, M.G., Conner, B., Wakefield, T.P. and Manogharan, G. (2018), “Hybrid manufacturing –
integrating traditional manufacturers with additive manufacturing (AM) supply chain”,
Additive Manufacturing, Vol. 21, pp. 159-173, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2018.03.010.
Suciu, G., Vulpe, A., Martian, A., Halunga, S. and Vizireanu, D.N. (2016), “Big data processing for
renewable energy telemetry using a decentralized cloud M2M system”, Wireless Personal
Communications, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 1113-1128, doi: 10.1007/s11277-015-2527-7.
Toyoda, K., Mathiopoulos, P.T., Sasase, I. and Ohtsuki, T. (2017), “A novel blockchain-based product
ownership management system (POMS) for anti-counterfeits in the post supply chain”,
IEEE Access, Vol. 5, pp. 17465-17477, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2720760.
Trentesaux, D., Borangiu, T. and Thomas, A. (2016), “Emerging ICT concepts for smart, safe and
sustainable industrial systems”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 81, pp. 1-10, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.05.001
Van Brummelen, J., O’Brien, M., Gruyer, D. and Najjaran, H. (2018), “Autonomous vehicle perception:
the technology of today and tomorrow”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, Vol. 89, pp. 384-406, doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2018.02.012.
van der Meij, M.G., Broerse, J.E.W. and Kupper, F. (2017), “Conceptualizing playfulness for reflection
processes in responsible research and innovation contexts: a narrative literature review”,
Journal of Responsible Innovation, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 43-63, available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/232
99460.2017.1326258
Vanderroost, M., Ragaert, P., Verwaeren, J., De Meulenaer, B., De Baets, B. and Devlieghere, F. (2017),
“The digitization of a food package’s life cycle: existing and emerging computer systems in the
logistics and post-logistics phase”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 87, pp. 15-30, doi: 10.1016/j.
compind.2017.01.004.
Vazquez-Martinez, G.A., Gonzalez-Compean, J.L., Sosa-Sosa, V.J., Morales-Sandoval, M. and Perez, J.C.
(2018), “Cloud chain: a novel distribution model for digital products based on supply chain
principles”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 39, pp. 90-103, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2017.12.006.
Verma, N. and Singh, J. (2017), “An intelligent approach to big data analytics for sustainable retail
environment using Apriori-MapReduce framework”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 117 No. 7, pp. 1503-1520, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2016-0367.
Waibel, M.W., Steenkamp, L.P., Moloko, N. and Oosthuizen, G.A. (2017), “Investigating the effects of
smart production systems on sustainability elements”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 8, October,
pp. 731-737, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.094.
Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S.J., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2017), “Big data analytics
and firm performance: effects of dynamic capabilities”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70,
pp. 356-365, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.009.
Wang, S., Wan, J., Li, D. and Zhang, C. (2016), “Implementing smart factory of industry 4.0: an
outlook”, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1155/
2016/3159805.
Wang, Y., Hungh, H.J. and Paul, B.-D. (2019), “Understanding blockchain technology for future supply
chains a systematic literature review and research agenda”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 62-84, doi: 10.1108/SCM-03-2018-0148.
BIJ World Economic Forum (2016a), “World economic forum white paper digital transformations of
28,5 industries: in collaboration with Accenture – societal implications”, available at: http://reports.
weforum.org/digital-transformation/wp-content/blogs.dir/94/mp/files/pages/files/dti-societal-
implications-white-paper.pdf (accessed 15 December 2018).
World Economic Forum (2016b), “World economic forum white paper digital transformations of
industries: in collaboration with Accenture – logistics industry”, available at: http://reports.
weforum.org/digital-transformation/wp-content/blogs.dir/94/mp/files/pages/files/wef-dti-
1782 logisticswhitepaper-final-january-2016.pdf (accessed 15 December 2018).
Wu, H., Li, Z., King, B., Ben Miled, Z., Wassick, J. and Tazelaar, J. (2017), “A distributed ledger
for supply chain physical distribution visibility”, Information, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.3390/
info8040137.
Xu, L.D., Xu, E.L. and Li, L. (2018), “Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 1-22, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1444806.
Yu, C., Xu, X. and Lu, Y. (2015), “Computer-integrated manufacturing, cyber-physical systems and
cloud manufacturing – concepts and relationships”, Manufacturing Letters, Vol. 6, pp. 5-9,
doi: 10.1016/j.mfglet.2015.11.005.
Yu, W. (2015), “The effect of IT-enabled supply chain integration on performance”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 945-957, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2014.1002021.
Zamfirescu, C.B., Pirvu, B.C.-T., Schlick, J. and Zuehlke, D. (2013), “Preliminary insides for an
anthropocentric cyber-physical reference architecture of the smart factory”, Studies in
Informatics and Control, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 269-278.
Zhong, R.Y., Xu, X., Klotz, E. and Newman, S.T. (2017), “Intelligent manufacturing in the context of
industry 4.0: a review”, Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 616-630, doi: 10.1016/J.ENG.2017.05.015.
Zhou, K., Liu, T. and Liang, L. (2016), “From cyber-physical systems to Industry 4.0: make future
manufacturing become possible”, International Journal of Manufacturing Research, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 167-188, available at: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMR.2016.078251

Further reading
Lai, K.H., Wong, C.W.Y. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2010), “Bundling digitized logistics activities and its
performance implications”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 273-286,
doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.08.002.
Oxford (2018), “Oxford dictionaries”, available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
artificial_intelligence (accessed 15 December 2018).
Wu, D., Ren, A., Zhang, W., Fan, F., Liu, P., Fu, X. and Terpenny, J. (2018), “Cybersecurity for digital
manufacturing”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 48, pp. 3-12, doi: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.03.006.
Wu, L., Yue, X., Jin, A. and Yen, D. (2016), “Smart supply chain management: a review and implications
for future research”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 395-417, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-02-2014-0035.
Wu, S.J., Melnyk, S.A. and Flynn, B.B. (2010), “Operational capabilities: the secret ingredient”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 721-754, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00294.x.

Corresponding author
Maciel M. Queiroz can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]