Bibby & Dehe

Production Planning & Control
The Management of Operations
ISSN: 0953-7287 (Print) 1366-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20
Defining and assessing industry 4.0 maturity levels

– case of the defence sector
Lee Bibby & Benjamin Dehe
To cite this article: Lee Bibby & Benjamin Dehe (2018) Defining and assessing industry 4.0
maturity levels – case of the defence sector, Production Planning & Control, 29:12, 1030-1043,
DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2018.1503355
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1503355
Published online: 12 Sep 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2966
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 26 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
2018, VOL. 29, NO. 12, 1030–1043
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1503355
Defining and assessing industry 4.0 maturity levels – case of the defence sector
Lee Bibbya and Benjamin Deheb
a
The Manufacturing Institute, Manchester, UK; bHuddersfield Business School, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Firms do not currently fully appreciate the complex characteristics of Industry 4.0 and as a result are Received 20 February 2018
uncertain about what it represents for them. In this study, an assessment model is developed to meas- Revised 18 July 2018
ure the level of implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies, around three dimensions: ‘Factory of the Accepted 19 July 2018
Future’, ‘People and Culture’, and ‘Strategy’. The ‘Factory of the Future’ is the main dimension and is Published online 12 Septem-
ber 2018
composed of eight attributes: Additive Manufacturing, Cloud, Manufacturing Execution System,
Internet of Things and Cyber Physical Systems, Big Data, Sensors, e-Value Chains, and Autonomous KEYWORDS
Robots. The study uses a defence manufacturing firm to develop, test and validate the model and Industry 4.0; maturity
report on 12 partners. We concluded that the focal firm has an Industry 4.0 maturity level of 59.35, assessment; defence sector
above the sector average of 55.58. This research contributes by empirically developing a model and
providing an analysis of major firms in the Defence supply network.
1. Introduction transformation of organisations to digitalise their entire man-

ufacturing process. This could include machines, people,
The future of manufacturing organisations is being trans-
infrastructure and new technologies such as blockchain to
formed globally by the development of a more digitalised
create fast, seamless, innovative, automated and intercon-
environment, where value chains are connected and produc-
nected networks, leading firms to develop e-value chains
tion systems are increasingly intelligent, autonomous and
(Pulevska-Ivanovska and Kaleshovska 2013; Schwab 2017;
automated (Fatorachian and Kazemi 2018; Schumacher, Erol,
Tapscott and Tapscott 2016). It has been predicted that
and Sihn 2016). These advancements are anticipated to real- smart factories will soon be conventional, incorporating
ise huge improvements in the flexibility, efficiency and auto- smarter products, smarter production and smarter supply
mation of manufacturing. They are welcomed by chains (Gilchrist 2016; PWC 2016). Industry 4.0 relies on
manufacturing organisations who are continually aiming to technological concepts such as the cloud, internet of things,
‘eliminate unnecessary production costs; improve manufac- cyber physical systems, big data, additive manufacturing, arti-
turing process and business performance; increase through- ficial intelligence and autonomous robots (Fatorachian and
put; reduce cycle times and maintain quality,’ in order to Kazemi 2018; Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016). Erol et al.
operate in changing manufacturing environments (Cottyn (2016) states that academics and practitioners envisage that
et al. 2011, 4397). Prause and Weigand (2016) support the the introduction of Industry 4.0 concepts will enable signifi-
premise of these challenges and suggest that the changing cant efficiency benefits for the entire supply network and
demographics, globalisation, scarcity of resources and firms may also become more predictive and resilient (Lucke,
dynamic technologies are key drivers, which affect the manu- Constantinescu, and Westk€amper 2008). This ‘revolution’ is
facturing sector and force radical change to ensure sustain- not seen to be just limited to the developed economies but
ability and progression. Furthermore, global competition and is a global movement, which organisations cannot afford to
customer changes to product requirements and specifica- ignore (EEF-The Manufacturers’ Organisation, 2016; Rayna
tions have resulted in shorter, unpredictable life cycles, driv- and Striukova, 2016). However, the 4th Industrial Revolution
ing businesses to adopt new technologies to cope with is bringing relatively new concepts and technologies (Lasi
customer demands such as products at low cost and high et al. 2014; Jiang, Kleer, and Piller 2017) and is leaving a
volumes, with greater customisation (Souza das Neves large proportion of firms to be unclear as to the effects and
et al. 2015). impacts it will really have for their business (Schuh et al.
To respond, changes and innovations are ineluctable. 2014; Qin, Liu, and Grosvenor 2016).
Manufacturing leaders believe these changes come in the Firms that are actively seeking to develop their Industry
form of the next Industrial Revolution known as Industry 4.0 4.0 status and strategies must begin with understanding
(EEF-The Manufacturers’ Organisation, 2016; Fatorachian and their current level of maturity in their specific context or sup-
Kazemi 2018). Industry 4.0 is seen to represent the ply network. This will allow them to determine their areas of
CONTACT Benjamin Dehe [email protected] Huddersfield Business School, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH,
United Kingdom
ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 1031
weakness and strength, prioritise improvement opportunities entire supply chain (Lanza, Haefner, and Kraemer 2015).
and manage development plans (Becker, Knackstedt, and Hermann, Pentek, and Otto (2015) describe two ‘design
Po€ppelbusz 2009). Nonetheless, as Schumacher, Erol, and principles’, which are enablers to the Industry 4.0 revolution:
Sihn (2016) suggest, most manufacturing organisations do interoperability and consciousness. Interoperability consists
not have the understanding or capability to assess their of communication, standardisation, flexibility and communi-
Industry 4.0 maturity level due to the lack of definitions, con- cation; whereas consciousness incorporates predictive main-
sensus and measurement tools (Schwab 2017; Gilchrist 2016). tenance, intelligent presentation and standardisation.
Hence, to support firms in evaluating their progression, Moreover, Qin, Liu, and Grosvenor (2016) suggest there are
assessment frameworks and models are recommended four key elements impacted by Industry 4.0: customer’s rela-
(Proenca and Borbinha 2016). The aim of this study is to tionship, factory and production management, product
develop an assessment framework and to measure the design and fabrication, and business processes. Lucke,
Industry 4.0 maturity of a focal firm: a leader in the defence Constantinescu, and Westk€amper (2008) describe the idea of
sector, and compare it against 12 organisations within its a smart factory as a network of systems, which are aware of
supply network. The assessment revolves around three major their environment, able to assist other machines and people
dimensions: ‘factory of the future’ (composed of 8 techno- in routine tasks by utilising ‘calm systems’ while working in
logical innovations: additive manufacturing, cloud, manufac- the background. Factories are likely to become more con-
turing execution system, internet of things and cyber nected through the synchronisation of different automated
physical systems, big data, sensors, e-value chains and systems, allowing to becoming more predictive and resilient
autonomous robots), ‘people and culture’ and ‘strategy’. (Lucke, Constantinescu, and Westk€amper 2008). This trans-
formation leads to radically change the way firms interact
2. Literature review with their suppliers and customers, altering the nature of
business processes. It is anticipated that a positive communi-
2.1. Industry 4.0 cation network will be established between related busi-
nesses by sharing real-time status for mutual benefit.
The industrial world has experienced three significant eras in
Product designs will change by incorporating embedded
its history (three industrial revolutions) and according to vari-
sensors/components capable of storing data to support pro-
ous sources (Prause and Weigand 2016; Schumacher, Erol,
duction processes, quality assurance and customer experi-
and Sihn 2016), is at the edge or is embarking on its fourth
transformation: the 4th Industrial Revolution. According to ence. Lasi et al. (2014) describe a vision for future
Dombrowski and Wagner (2014) the categorisation of a new production, they believe organisations will develop modular
Industrial Revolution constitutes a significant change in the products and implement manufacturing systems, where
technical, economic or social systems within the industry, a products have the ability to control their own manufacturing
paradigm shift in the production model. The terminology process. This ideology is expected to enable the manufacture
‘Industry 4.0’ appears to have been initiated in Germany at of individual products in a batch size of one while maintain-
the Hanover Fair event in 2011, representing the start of the ing the economic conditions of mass production. Stock and
4th Industrial Revolution (Lee 2013). Other countries have Seliger (2016) support the idea of true mass customisation
adopted similar terminologies i.e.: USA with ‘Industrial within industry and advocate involving the customer, early
Internet’ and China with ‘Internet þ’ (Wang et al. 2016). The during the product life cycle.
term Industry 4.0 is stated as one of the most popular topics According to Fatorachian and Kazemi (2018), Lanza,
for the global manufacturing sector within both industry and Haefner, and Kraemer (2015) and Roden et al. (2017), the
academia (Kagermann et al. 2013), however, the academic lit- people and cultural aspects should also be considered when
erature on this topic remains scarce (Qin, Liu, and Grosvenor, assessing Industry 4.0, as it will impact and be influenced by
2016). Prause and Weigand (2016, 104) define Industry 4.0 as values such as openness in the way data are managed, the
the ‘combination of cyber physical systems with automated ability of the workforce to adopt new technology, continu-
systems’ with the objective to create context-aware manufac- ous improvement, innovation and communication. Schuh
turing facilities in which people and machines are in real- et al. (2014) makes a comparison between previous Industrial
time alignment. A vision stated by Monostori (2014) is to Revolutions and Industry 4.0. They argue that the 4th
have a manufacturing division, which has its machines, prod- Industrial revolution has a wider bearing within the entire
ucts and entire production facilities connected and inte- value chain to maximise productivity, efficiencies, innovation,
grated to enable partial or full automation that requires creativity and sustainability performances. This is significantly
minimal or no manual operations. It is also envisioned to different to the previous Industrial Revolutions which pre-
include ‘technological concepts and solutions which will dominantly changed the effectiveness of ‘shop floor’ based
enable a combination of the economy of scale with the activities rather than extending the benefits to supporting
economy of scope’ (Dombrowski and Wagner 2014, 101). functions such as design, engineering, supply chain or
Furthermore, according to PWC (2016), Industry 4.0 is the finance and marketing. Such a radical change or paradigm
physical digitalisation of all assets within an organisation to shift in manufacturing firms will no doubt lead to increased
create a connected infrastructure combined with partners complexity of production process at a micro and macro level
leading to create an ‘e-value chain’. The term Industry 4.0 (Schuh et al. 2014). Hence, this should naturally be translated
not only applies to individual companies but also to the within the strategy and the product range of a firm,
1032 L. BIBBY AND B. DEHE
demonstrated by larger investment in the digitalisation tech- equipment, the balance of offset/offload labour will shift,
nology, IT infrastructure and the ability to increase its agile with the predominate source of production taking place in
production and supply chain systems. the consumer country.
Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn (2016) suggest that organisa-
tions are finding it difficult to relate the Industry 4.0 vision
into the business in order to provide significant benefits to 2.1.2. Cloud
justify the large financial investment. Qin, Liu, and Grosvenor The term ‘cloud manufacturing’ can be represented by a com-
(2016) imply that the general population of manufacturing bination of various IT packages including: internet services,
companies are disordered and disorganised with what web based application and system management (Helo et al.
Industry 4.0 brings and the challenges it introduces. 2014). Lan et al. (2004) describes cloud-based solutions as a
Nonetheless, there are eight key technological components web based application of which information is stored on exter-
that are consistently linked to operationalize Industry 4.0. nal servers and is primarily accessible through the Internet.
Ren et al. (2017) describes the philosophy of cloud manufac-
turing as a ‘smart networked manufacturing model’, which
2.1.1. Additive manufacturing or 3D printing supports product individualisation, greater global collaboration,
Additive manufacturing or 3D-printing is a process by knowledge intensive innovation and a quicker ability to
which products are created on a layer-by-layer basis, using respond to market trends. Xu (2012) explains cloud manufac-
a collection of cross sectional layers (Berman 2012; Rayna turing is set to transform the manufacturing organisation from
and Striukova 2016). There are two main techniques used production oriented manufacturing to service oriented manu-
in industry, one method uses powder, which is built up facturing. Thames and Schaefer (2016), describe cloud manu-
layer-by-layer and the other uses thin layers of resin, which facturing as a networked manufacturing system, which uses
are solidified by ultraviolet (UV) light to create a solid struc- free access to common, diverse and varied collection of manu-
ture. Typically, the products produced are designed using facturing resource. They explain that these resources enable
universal 3D CAD software tools (Casey 2009). The popular- temporary cyber-physical production lines, which have more
ity of 3D-printing machines has been growing across indus- advance efficiency gains, lower unit production costs and bet-
tries, originally to support R and D activities within ter-utilised physical resources to respond to customer
organisations; however, based on the 18 projections made demands on a flexible basis (Li et al. 2010). The cloud enables
by Jiang, Kleer, and Piller (2017) the 3D-printing impact will organisations to virtually store and organise their production
be much more substantial by 2030. The attractiveness of resources within a central location in order for a shared plat-
3D-Printing machines has been driven predominately as a form to allow all partners to access this information, real-time
result of the affordability in comparison to rapid prototyp- in a collaborative method (Hao and Helo 2015). These
ing machines (Baumers et al. 2016; Jiang, Kleer, and Piller advancements in ‘connectability’ between customers and sup-
2017). These printing systems have been linked to the pliers are critical to the success of the e-value chain concept.
developing idea of ‘mass customisation’ within the Industry
4.0, whereby an organisation would have the ability to
quickly and economically manufacture bespoke parts for 2.1.3. Manufacturing execution systems (MES)
specific product lines (Berman 2012). Thilmany (2009) Software companies have developed what is being called
explains 3D-printing will be going through a three-stage manufacturing execution systems (MES), to provide data
evolution. Phase one consists of operators of the machine management capabilities and a ‘common user interface’ for
creating mock-ups and developing prototypes in a research operators, which bridge the gap between automated pro-
and development environment. Phase two involves organi- duction capabilities and the organisations’ ERP systems (Choi
sations using the technology to produce parts to be used and Kim 2002). Saenz de Ugarte, Artiba, and Pellerin (2009,
as ‘finished goods’. These products may be used for tooling 526) define a MES as: ‘a system that delivers information to
or early prototypes with better functionality. Phase three optimise production activities from order launch to finished
expects 3D printers being used by the end customer to goods, using current and accurate data. A MES guides, ini-
produce parts required within the home or business con- tiates, responds to and reports on plant activities as they
text, e.g. parts for cars or computers. 3D-printing capabil- occur. The resulting rapid response to changing conditions,
ities have offered the opportunity for aerospace, medical coupled with a focus on reducing non-value-added activities,
and automotive industries to trial complex geometric struc- drives effective plant operations and processes. The MES
tures that conventional manufacturing techniques may find improves the return on operational assets as well as on-time
difficult to produce (Bogue 2013). However, it has been delivery, inventory turns, gross margin and cash-flow per-
stated that there is still a long way to go before products formance’. Valckenaers et al. (2007) describes MES as a sys-
produced on 3D-Printers will be able to integrate with tem, which reflects reality to an adequate level, enabling
safety critical products, due to issues related to material production management teams to track, monitor and com-
strength, longevity, resistance to heat and moisture and mand all manufacturing activities. Furthermore, the tool
precision (Petrovic et al. 2011). The work of Gebler, offers organisations the ability to control inventory and pro-
Uiterkamp, and Visser (2014) shows that as 3D-printing vides functions to assist management planning (Helo et al.
becomes more popular for the actual production of prod- 2014). Hwang (2006) states that MES performs a central dis-
ucts in industries such as aerospace and medical tribution of data role within the heart of the production
system, collecting, processing, analysing and acting upon in order to retrieve, monitor and report information to the
materials, products and equipment data. user or decision-makers (Babiceanu and Seker, 2016). The
application of smart sensors provides a foundation for con-
necting the products, equipment and physical facilities
2.1.4. Internet of things (IoT) and cyber physical sys-
within the cyber world of internet applications and the soft-
tems (CPS)
ware environment (Babiceanu and Seker, 2015). The intro-
Shaev (2014) defines the internet of things to be a process of
duction of smart sensors into manufacturing organisations
changing the nature of information and network technologies
can provide numerous benefits, one of which is the idea of
in the world today to seamlessly unite people and things.
predictive maintenance.
Shaev (2014) expands by suggesting that internet of things
optimises connectivity, not just the connectivity of people but
also that of machines and devices. It is suggested this concept 2.1.7. e-Value Chains
incorporates the perfect blend of sensors and objects commu- Becoming more digitalised offers organisations the opportun-
nicating seamlessly using a common platform to benefit vari- ity to become more connected, smarter and highly efficient
ous users (Yang, Yang, and Plotnick 2013). The optimisation of within their supply chains (Schrauf and Berttram 2016). The
existing networks combined with the establishment of smart introduction of digitalisation within organisations is helping to
connectivity is described as a critical element to the success overcome previous barriers between key partners and starts
of the internet of things concept (Gubbi et al. 2013). There to create e-value chains, which connect the entire supply net-
are three important enablers which should be established to work from suppliers, to distributors to the end customers
facilitate the introduction of the internet of things: i) machines (Schrauf and Berttram 2016). Pulevska-Ivanovska and
and the users distribute information about their live situation, Kaleshovska (2013) in their paper provide a deep insight into
ii) the availability of software architectures and universal com- the concept of e-supply chain, which can be considered as
munication systems to process and distribute information to the precursor of the e-value chain concept. If the internet
where it is required, and iii) the processing and analysis tools enabled to develop agile and flexible information systems
in the internet of things that aim for independent and smart that led partner organisations to share data and optimise their
performance. Gilchrist (2016, 58) states the main aim of the supply chains (Gimenez and Lourenço 2008; Pulevska-
Internet of Things is to ‘provide enough connectivity and Ivanovska and Kaleshovska 2013); the aim, within Industry 4.0,
functionality to enable a computer system to sense informa- is to focus on the value creation and optimisation through
tion autonomously without the interaction of humans’. As the application of these new technologies. For instance, by
Fatorachian and Kazemi (2018) explained the cyber physical combining additive manufacturing, sensors, IoT and big data,
systems to enable fast and reliable data exchange for effective a worldwide distributed network of firms will be able to pre-
communication between the different systems: machines and dict, manufacture and serve a bespoke demand for a specific
products as well as humans. item almost in real time (Lee, Kao, and Yang 2014).
Furthermore, Schwab (2017) expresses that firms that focus
on establishing an e-value chain will have a unique insight on
2.1.5. Big data
their customers and asset performances, which will enable to
Intrinsic to the development of Industry 4.0 are two important
develop a platform for R&D, marketing, sales and distribution
aspects, the availability and the manipulation of big data (Gu
and optimise the quality, innovation, speed and cost of their
et al. 2015). As a result of developments in the manufacturing
products and services. In the future, robust e-value chains will
industry, organisations are now utilising more complex manu-
need also to rely on smart contract and the blockchain tech-
facturing processes, equipment and products, and are there-
nology (Tapscott and Tapscott 2016). McKinsey (2016) explains
fore obtaining more data (Windmann et al. 2015; Pethig et al.
that organisations will show signs of improvement as a result
2012). It is believed that successful implementation of the
of the introduction of smart or e-value chains. They will pro-
smart factory concept requires the combination of smart
vide the ability to manage suppliers in more detail and have
machines and products with big analytical data abilities. Wang
complete transparency between suppliers and customers,
et al. (2016) explains this will initiate flexibility and promote
improving suppliers’ network by becoming more resilient, flex-
efficiency. However, Gu et al. (2015) suggests that 95% of
ible and agile. Pearson (2013) explains that e-value chain will
data currently generated within manufacturing organisations
enable firms to have the ability to reduce lead times, minimise
is unstructured and non-analysed. This type of data does not
inventory costs, enhance customer experience and optimise
currently add value to manufacturing organisations without
supplier performance by integrating data from the entire
the capability. However, Roden et al. (2017) have illustrated
value chain in real time with great accuracy. The availability of
the potential of big data in four cases: Ebay, Volkswagen,
real-time data between customers and suppliers and the asso-
Philips and Walmart, comparing its role and impact on the dif-
ciated transparency will become more frequent as the revolu-
ferent components of a firm operational model.
tion develops and becomes more widely used. Furthermore,
through the advancement in technology and organisations
2.1.6. Sensors adopting Industry 4.0 concepts and technologies, the methods
The Industry 4.0’s vision presents a manufacturing system by which businesses manage their supply chains will be
filled with sensors integrated into processes and equipment changed drastically and enable manufacturers to achieve true
mass customisation (Geissbauer, Weissbarth, and Wetzstein culture, people, governance and technology, to determine the
2016) especially with the enhanced use of 3D-printing. maturity of the Industry 4.0 concepts within organisations.
Becker, Knackstedt, and Po €ppelbusz (2009) suggest matur-
ity models have been proven to be an important instrument
2.1.8. Autonomous robotics as a result of their ability to position organisations against
A high proportion of automation for machines and robots is the concept being assessed and help find better solutions
required in order to achieve the efficiency and effectiveness for change. Maturity assessment models are described as a
gains predicted within the Industry 4.0 revolution (Wu et al. framework for systematic and continuous performance
2013). Gray (2016) states that advanced robotics is one of
improvement (Langston and Ghanbaripour 2016). Backlund,
the critical activities developing within the manufacturing
Chroneer, and Sundqvist (2014) support this by suggesting
industry. Advanced robots also known as collaborative robots
the capabilities of an organisation can be managed as a
(cobots) are a key enabler for the introduction of Industry
framework and thus be measured for maturity.
4.0. Pfeiffer (2016) agrees, emphasising that smart robots,
There are two Industry 4.0 assessment models developed
embedded with sensors, dexterity and increased artificial
and published by consulting firms: IMPULS and PWC both in
intelligence and machine learning, is one of the key technol-
2016. These two assessment models use slightly different
ogies driving the progress of the Industry 4.0 revolution. The
methods to analyse the implementation of Industry 4.0 con-
use of automation within manufacturing industries is ena-
cepts within an organisation. The first model offered by
bling organisations to deliver more output than what they
IMPULS provides feedback on an organisation’s preparation
would normally be capable of doing (Gray 2016). The use of
for Industry 4.0 and delivers improvement advice. This model
autonomous robots is vastly improving the productivity of
is characterised by six foundations: ‘strategy and organisa-
the automotive industry by being faster, stronger and more
tion, smart factory, smart operations, smart products, data
precise than human workers (Better Policies for Better Lives
driven services and employees’. Within these six categories
2016). Furthermore, autonomous robots have been found to
the model scores an organisation’s progress on a scale of
be more practical than humans in some instances (Pfeiffer
0–5. After completion of the model, the organisation is
2016). Although, Markoff (2016) acknowledges the import-
ranked according to its progress by six levels: Outsider (0),
ance of master craftsmen within some industries and pro-
Beginner (1), Intermediate (2), Experienced (3), Expert (4) and
vides an example stating that Toyota had tried to eliminate
Top Performer (5).
the human interaction within the manufacturing process
The second model developed by PWC offers organisations
entirely, but found that the need for master craftsmen was
an opportunity to understand where they are on their jour-
essential. One of the opportunities provided by autonomous
ney within the Industry 4.0 and provides advice on the next
robots, which links to an objective of Industry 4.0, is the abil-
steps. This model uses six different categories to analyse the
ity for organisations to implement mass customisation (UK
organisation: ‘business models, product and service portfolio,
Network, 2016). Lorentz et al. (2015) details the advance-
market and customer access, value chain and processes, it
ments in autonomous robots and describes how they can
now imitate the actions of humans, work autonomously, are architecture, compliance, legal, risk, security and tax and
consciously aware of their surroundings and adapt to unex- organisation and culture’. The model requires users to self-
pected scenarios. As advancements in robot technology pro- assess the organisation by interpreting the state of maturity
gress, the range of a robot’s capability increases (Gray 2016). on a scale of 1–5, followed by indicating a target maturity
Today, robots are not only used for highly repetitive, low- level on a scale of 1–5. Subsequent to completion of the
skilled jobs but also in medium skilled, highly routine activ- model, the organisation is categorised depending on matur-
ities (UK Network, 2016). ity, into four sections: digital novice, vertical integrator, hori-
zontal collaborator and digital champion.
However, it is felt that there is a gap in the academic
2.1.9. Summary of the technological concepts sphere enabling assessing and reporting the level of practi-
Table 1 summarises these eight key technological concepts ces that firms demonstrate against the major Industry 4.0
behind Industry 4.0 and acknowledges some of the technological constructs. The published academic and scien-
main studies. tific literature is still limited and at its pre-paradigm stage
(Brettel et al. 2014; Lee, Kao, and Yang 2014; Qin, Liu, and
Grosvenor 2016; Roblek et al. 2016). Moreover, governments
2.2. Industry 4.0 assessment and maturity models
and policy makers have echoed researchers and called for
It has been stated within the literature that manufacturing shedding some light on these new technologies (Great
organisations do not have the understanding or capability to Britain 2017). In particular, the ability to gauge and measure
assess their own Industry 4.0 level and/or maturity a consolidated Industry 4.0 implementation strategy rather
(Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016). Qin, Liu, and Grosvenor than a singular topic area, i.e. 3D printing (Schumacher, Erol,
(2016) suggest that the criteria which define the successful and Sihn 2016), which is the aim of this study. Hence, start-
implementation of Industry 4.0 have yet to be fully agreed and ing from the available literature and the consulting frame-
that a roadmap would clarify the path to Industry 4.0, even as, works, the following model was created around three main
Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn (2016) have identified nine charac- dimensions and 13 key attributes, as per Figure 1, which is
teristics: strategy, leadership, customers, products, operations, used to assess the maturity of a defence manufacturing
Table 1. Industry 4.0 main technological concepts.

Factory of the future practices Studies Description and characteristic
Additive Manufacturing - 3DP Berman (2012); Bogue (2013); Gebler, Additive Manufacturing is a process by which products are produced
Uiterkamp, and Visser (2014); Jiang, autonomously layer-by-layer. Additive manufacturing is a key
Kleer, and Piller (2017); Rayna and technology to enable mass customisation through the ability to
Striukova (2016); Schniederjans (2017); produce bespoke parts quickly, combined with the transformation
Thilmany (2009). in customer supplier relationship with customers having the abil-
ity to produce their own spare parts, plus the ability to avoid pur-
chasing new capital equipment for new product introduction. The
technology is more commonly used for rapid prototyping and the
creation of bespoke tooling.
Cloud Helo et al. (2014); Lan et al (2003); Ren Cloud is describes as a web-based application of which information
et al. (2017);Thames and Schaefer (2016); is stored on external servers. It is represented by three IT combi-
Xu (2012). nations: Internet Service, Web Application and Information
Management. Cloud manufacturing relates specifically to
the Industry 4.0 concept. It acts at the backbone to support the
Internet of Things, MES and the connectivity of sensors. The cloud
manufacturing concepts creates a central platform which allows
common access to data from across the e-value chain to enable
flexibility efficiency gains.
Manufacturing Execution System (MES) Choi and Kim (2002); Hwang (2006); Saenz MES provides data management capabilities and a ‘common user
de Ugarte, Artiba, and Pellerin (2009); interface’ for operators. A MES system is a useful tool for organi-
Souza das Neves et al. (2015). sations that have a demand for accurate traceability of compo-
nent parts and assembly activities to monitor quality, cost and
lead time. A MES system also provides a central distribution of
information role.
Internet of Things and CPS Fatorachian and Kazemi (2018); Gilchrist The Internet of Things is described commonly as the connectivity of
(2016); Gubbi et al (2013); L
opez et al. ‘Things’ within manufacturing. The term ‘Things’ fundamentally
(2012); Shaev (2014); Yang, Yang, and represents anything within the manufacturing environment: prod-
Plotnick (2013). ucts, people, machines, or parts. The concept is enabled through
the application of smart sensors. To enable the success of the
concept, a common platforms and Cyber Physical systems are
used to create an environment were all things are connected.
Big Data Babiceanu and Seker (2015 ; 2016); Erol The availability and interrogation of data is a key feature of Industry
et al (2016); Gao et al (2015); Gu et al 4.0. Through the advancements in technology, the readiness of
(2015); Roden et al (2017);Windmann data is common, however the collection, analysis and presenta-
et al (2015). tion of this data is rare within organisations. The use of data ena-
bles the ability to effectively plan, control and respond to
production processes, systems and networks. The literature sug-
gested 95% of data generated within manufacturing organisations
is not processes and used effectively.
Sensors Babiceanu and Seker (2015); Brintrup et al The use of smart sensors within manufacturing organisation enables
(2010); Vadde, Kamarthi and Berry the generation of important and useful data, which can then be
(2005); Valckenaers et al.(2007). retrieved, monitored and reported to the user. Sensors also pro-
vide the platform for digitalising ‘things’ to support the Internet
of Things concept. A common sensor used within manufacturing
organisation is the RFID sensor, which is used to collect and
transmit data back to a common platform like the manufactur-
ing cloud.
e-Value Chains Geissbauer, Weissbarth, and Wetzstein The e-Value Chain concept is enabled through the Industry 4.0 con-
(2016); Glas (2016); McKinsey (2016); cepts which support digitalisation and therefore allow seamless
Ronchi et al. (2010); Schrauf and connectivity, collaboration and cooperation between supplier and
Berttram (2016). customer. This concept also includes the concept of Procurement
4.0 which reduces lead times, inventory costs, customer experi-
ence and supplier performance by integrating data from the
entire value chain. Connectivity across the value chain provides
opportunities for transparency to create a live environment to
support the customer and supplier activities.
Autonomous Robots Gray (2016); Lorentz et al (2015) ; Markoff Autonomous or Smart Robots are described in the literature as a key
(2016) ; Wu et al (2013); part of Industry 4.0 success. The use of Smart Robots is increasing
throughput, product quality and reducing unit production costs.
In some instance the use of Smart Robots is more practical than
humans. Advancements in the activities robotics delivers has
transformed from repetitive low-skill work to repeatable medium-
skill work. This concept is also supporting the Industry 4.0 object-
ive of mass customisation. Advancements in robotics allow the
systems to imitate the actions of humans, work autonomously,
are consciously aware of their surroundings and adapt to unex-
pected scenarios.
world leader and 12 other firms in its supply network. The literature as key attributes of Industry 4.0. The ‘People and
‘Factory of the Future’ dimension of the framework focuses Culture’ dimension is a fundamental part of implementing
specifically on the eight key technologies and concepts Industry 4.0 due to the value and power of the people
behind Industry 4.0 (Brettel et al. 2014; PWC 2016; Qin, Liu, within organisations (Schwab 2017). A culture of innovation
and Grosvenor 2016). These were each identified within the and continuous improvement is one which embraces change
To do so, the study utilises a combination of data collection

methods including: semi-structured interviews, workshops
3D Printing
and item scoring, which are embedded within a case-study
Cloud logic, in order to test and validate the model leading to gen-
erate the empirical data of the study (Dehe and Bamford,
MES
2015). Voss, Tsikriktsis, and Frohlich (2002) describe case
Factory of
the future IoT and CPS studies as a useful technique for exploring a phenomenon or
in a theory building research. Furthermore, Yin (2003) sug-
Big Data
gests the use of case studies as a research method to create
Sensors a sound platform to develop knowledge and shed some light
in a specific area, which is the rationale and objective of this
E-Value Chain
research. Hence, both qualitative and quantitative data were
Industry gathered and analysed during the study.
Autonomous Robots
4.0
maturity The main contribution of the research is based on the
findings from the focal firm, a world leader in the defence
sector with a workforce between 1001 and 5000 employees
Innovation openness and a revenue exceeding £500 Million based in the UK. The
People and
Culture company was used as the test-bed, to validate the model
Continuous Improvement and derive from it the required maturity assessment tools
capabilities
(IMPULS 2016; Goodson 2002; PWC 2016). Three iterations of
the tool were generated before the maturity assessment
Technological investment items were presented to 20 employees within the focal firm
during a workshop and the feedback was gathered and the
Strategy Agility vision
framework modified accordingly.
Manufacturing strategy Once the model was validated and accepted, 14 experts
from within the focal firm were asked to complete the
Figure 1. Industry 4.0 conceptual framework.
maturity assessment for the organisation. Table 2 details the
expert selection and the justification for their participation in
and thrives at new opportunities (Fatorachian and Kazemi
the study. The experts selected have been approached spe-
2018; Lanza, Haefner, and Kraemer 2015; Roden et al. 2017;
cifically based on their wide knowledge of the firm’s manu-
Stock and Seliger 2016). Finally, a robust and clear strategy,
facturing processes and strategies, as well as their ability to
an ambitious and well thought out technology investment
visit, access and communicate with the external organisa-
plan and an agility vision are also important characteristics
tions. This led to the focal firm maturity assessment results.
of an organisation for Industry 4.0 maturity (Erol et al., 2016).
The rating scales used a Likert scale scoring system from 1
to 5; ‘1’ being the lowest possible score to ‘5’ being the
2.3. Technology adoption in the defence sector highest possible score.
After each section of the maturity assessment (‘factory of
The effective and fast adoption of these new digital technolo- the future’, ‘people and culture’ and ‘strategy’) the scores are
gies and implementation into manufacturing processes are aggregated to provide a total score. At the end of the
critical in order to optimise the suggested gains offered by assessment model the scores from each section are then
Industry 4.0 (Ebner & Bechtold, 2012). Ebner and Bechtold used in relation to an Industry 4.0 maturity table, as per
(2012) discuss the differences between sectors and their ability Table 3. For each section of the model, the minimum and
to embrace technology evolutions. It is suggested that the maximum scores were determined and then divided to make
automotive industry is capable of adopting new technologies four equal maturity bands: ‘Minimal’, ‘Development’,
and of transforming quicker than the defence and aerospace ‘Defined’ and ‘Excellence’. ‘Factory of the Future’ had 16
sector. However, the defence sector has traditionally been at Likert scale items, the points can range from 16 to 80.
the technological forefront (Boddy 2017; Bitzinger 2015), due ‘People and Culture’ had three items, the points ranged from
to a range of internal and external parameters, the culture 3 to 15. Finally, ‘Strategy’ had four items, so the points
and people as well as the overall strategy. ranged from 4 to 20. Table 3 shows the final scoring bands
Hence, this leads to set the research question: How and to to represent Industry 4.0 maturity. At the present moment it
what extent can the current maturity level of Industry 4.0 be was assumed that a linear relationship exists between the
assessed within the defence sector? categories. However, with 16 items the ‘Factory of the
Future’ is the most important area, which is in line with our
interpretation of the literature.
3. Methodology
A score between 23 and 46 would lead a firm to have a
The study sets out to research, investigate and assess the minimal level, not exposing any technical or behavioural
advancement or maturity of Industry 4.0 concepts within the attribute linked to Industry 4.0. A total score between 47 and
defence sector, as per the aforementioned research question. 69 would be associated with the development level, where
Table 2. List of the 14 selected experts.

Title Quantity Justification for selection
Principle Manufacturing Engineering 2 Chosen for their knowledge of Industry 4.0, and their ability to access external manufacturing organisations.
Principal Supply Chain Engineer 3 Chosen for their Industry 4.0 understanding and their ability to take a Supply Chain overview.
Manufacturing Systems Controller 3 Chosen for their basic Industry 4.0 knowledge and their ability to take an objective overview of the tool.
Senior Manufacturing Engineer 2 Chosen for basic Industry 4.0 knowledge and their ability to access other organisations.
Head of Manufacturing 1 Chosen for their Industry 4.0 knowledge and their ability to gain access to other manufacturing organisations.
Procurement Manager 2 Chosen for their Industry 4.0 knowledge and their ability to gain access to other manufacturing organisations.
Industrial Validation Manager 1 Chosen for their Industry 4.0 knowledge and their ability to gain access to other manufacturing organisations.
Table 3. Maturity scale.

Level 1: Minimal Level 2: Development Level 3: Defined Level 4: Excellence
Factory of the Future 16–32 33–48 49–64 65–80
People and Culture 3–6 7–9 10–12 13–15
Strategy 4–8 9–12 13–16 17–20
Overall 23–46 47–69 70–92 93–115
Table 4. Sample of the 12 partners firms. results compiled in Table 5. The results show that the
Sample Focus Workforce Revenue Industry 4.0 maturity level of the focal firm was
P1 Defence 5001þ >£500 M (39.08 þ 8.49 þ 11.78) ¼ 59.35 points. This would position
P2 Engineering/Metrology 1001–5000 £250–500 M the firm in the development segment (level 2) of the maturity
P3 Digital signage 51–100 £1–10 M model. The ‘factory of the future’ area achieved a score of
P4 Defence 1001–5000 >£500 M
P5 Aerospace 51–100 £1–10 M 39.08; this signifies that the company resides in the develop-
P6 Defence 1001–5000 £250–500 M ment section of the maturity scale of this criterion. The ‘people
P7 Defence 1001–5000 >£500 M and culture’ criteria was assessed and scored 8.49 points, which
P8 Defence 101–300 £10–50 M
P9 Defence 301–1000 £50–100 M is also equivalent to the development level. Finally, for
P10 Aerospace 1001–5000 >£500 M ‘strategy’, the results also show a score of 11.78 points corre-
P11 Defence 5001þ £250–500 M sponding to the development level. Across the three areas, the
P12 Defence 101–300 £100–250 M
focal firm was scored at the level 2 of the framework. This
means that in terms of technology implementation, culture,
some of the practices are visible with clear intention to workforce and strategy, the organisation as a perceived similar
develop this further. A total score between 70 and 92 would level of advancement regarding the Industry 4.0 concepts and
indicate a Defined level, with well-established practices and does not have any excelling or lacking specific areas.
behaviour. Finally a score between 93 and 115 would indi- Table 5 shows the descriptive results and presents each
cate aspect of best practice or excellence as described in the dimension, their associated criteria, as per Figure 1, and the
literature review section. derived items that formed the maturity assessment, which
Finally, 12 partnering firms were selected, based on their were scored by the experts. The individual score based on
relative importance to the focal firm. The data collection and the weighted average, and the aggregated and total scores
assessment of these partners’ organisations was made in col- are reported in Table 5.
laboration between one of the experts from the focal firm Remarkably, for the ‘factory of the future’ criteria, the
and the head of manufacturing or their equivalent within focal firm demonstrates advanced practices and usages of
the external organisations. The score recorded was based on the manufacturing executive system (6.29). The organisation
their consensus (Dehe and Bamford 2017). This enabled has invested a large amount recently (Circa £3 million) to
building certain robustness and confidence in the assess- optimise its purposed built new production site. Moreover,
ment. The collation of the data allowed benchmarking the big data (5.86) has been a specific area of focus and data
Industry 4.0 practices against each other and with the focal analytics systems are currently being deployed to support
firm. Hence, the framework was used by the focal firm to the firm to capitalise on it, for instance, for understanding
assess the maturity of 12 of their major supply network part- even more precisely quality statistics and predicting mainten-
ners. The rationale was to appreciate how was Industry 4.0 ance of machines and products. autonomous robots (5.64)
understood within their network and shed some light on this has been an area of focus in the past 2 years, especially with
technological phenomenon from a supply network perspec- the design of the purpose built new factory, realising sub-
tive. Table 4 below provides details about the profile of stantial productivity gain and quality improvement. Finally,
these 12 partners’ organisations. 3D-printing (5) is also a technology that the firm is con-
sciously taking advantage of for prototyping, with the intent
to use it for final product in the near future. On the other
4. Maturity assessment findings hand, it can be noticed from the results that sensors (3) and
the e-value chain (3.71) practices are less advanced. The firm
4.1. Maturity assessment results – focal firm
has not fully embraced or invested in the sensors technology
The 14 respondents within the focal firm completed and could enhance its collaboration by increasing the level
the Industry 4.0 maturity assessment, which led to the of connectivity and the real-time data sharing practice with
Table 5. Details of the focal firm assessment results.

Score based on the Aggregated Total
Area Criteria Maturity assessment items weighted average score score
Factory of the Future 3DP The organisation uses a 3DP machine for the creation 3.93 5 39.08
of tooling, prototypes or spare parts
The organisation’s 3DP machines use metal alloys as 1.07
its raw material
Cloud The organisation store information within a 2.79 4.65
cloud network
Hard resources (e.g. machines and robots) and soft 1.86
resources (e.g. data, documents and software) are
connected to a cloud
MES The organisation has the ability to see live manufac- 2.43 6.29
turing systems and make changes immediately
The organisation uses digital media to bring informa- 3.86
tion directly to the workforce
IoT and CPS The organisation uses advanced connectability tech- 2.93 4.93
nology between equipment, products and people
There is evidence that the organisation has embraced 2
digitalisation for product, parts and machinery
Big Data The organisation has the ability to access data quickly 2.93 5.86
and effectively from equipment, products,
machines, facilities and systems
The organisation has the ability to analyse process 2.93
data in order to make decisions, share information
and improve negative trends
Sensors There is evidence that the organisation is using sen- 1.14 3
sors on products and supplied parts
Intelligent sensors are used within the organisation’s 1.86
manufacturing process to support automation
e-Value chain The level of connectability and collaboration the 2.64 3.71
organisation has with its suppliers is high
Customers have the ability to access the organisations 1.07
systems to view manufacturing progress and deliv-
ery dates
Autonomous Robots The organisation’s machines have the ability to be run 2.57 5.64
autonomously or through an external system
The level of automation is evident within the produc- 3.07
tion area
People and culture Innovation openness There is evidence to suggest the majority of the work- 3.07 5.78 8.49
force is familiar with the Industry 4.0 innovations
The organisation operate using ‘zero paper’ to control, 2.71
display and transport data
CI culture There is a sense of continuous improvement culture 2.71 2.71
within the company
Strategy Technology investment There is evidence that the organisation is investing in 4.07 4.07 11.78
industry 4.0 technology and IT infrastructure
Agility vision The organisation has the ability to quickly and easily 2.07 5.14
customise products to a customer’s request whilst
maintaining the same service quality
There is evidence of partnering with external organisa- 3.07
tions related to deploying Industry 4.0
Manufacturing strategy There is a clear Industry 4.0 roadmap available 2.57 2.57
its suppliers. It seems, understandably, that security is the Additionally, Table 7 shows the scores for the assessment
major barrier preventing the focal firm in enhancing utilisa- of the 12 firms belonging in the same supply network for
tion of these technologies. the ‘factory of the future’ criteria.
On average, big data (6.58) and 3D-printing (5.33) are the
most advanced technological practices, whereas the cloud
4.2. Maturity assessment results – external partners (3.58) and sensors (3.33) are much less used. Table 8 pro-
vides the details of the strongest and weakest Industry 4.0
For the assessment to be more relevant and meaningful, 12
area for each firms.
partners organisations were identified as being adequate to
assess and benchmark their score in order to capture best
practices and identify the areas for improvement. The results
5. Discussion
are summarised in Table 6.
On an average for the 12 partners firms, the total score According to Schumacher et al. (2016), most organisations
reaches 55.58, with 38 for the ‘factory of the future’. Only do not have the ability to assess their own Industry 4.0
one firm (P2) is at the defined level (level 3) and 2 firms (P4 maturity. Furthermore, Becker,Knackstedt, and Po €ppelbusz
and P8) are ranked at the minimal level (level 1). (2009) explain it is important for an organisation to assess
Table 6. External organisations industry 4.0 maturity assessment results analysis.

Partners firms Factory of the future People and culture Strategy Overall Maturity level
P1 37 9 7 53 Development
P2 50 9 13 72 Defined
P4 31 7 6 44 Minimal
P8 26 6 6 38 Minimal
Average 38 development 8.08 development 9.50 development 55.58 Development
Stand dev 7.59 1.16 3.09 9.99
Table 7. ‘Factory of the future’ assessment of external partners.

Partners firms 3DP cloud MES IoT and CPS Big data Sensors e-Value chain Autonomous robots Total score Maturity
P1 7 2 5 6 6 3 4 4 37 Development
P2 10 6 5 5 7 5 5 7 50 Defined
P3 2 8 7 5 5 4 5 2 38 Development
P4 3 5 3 5 6 2 3 4 31 Minimal
P5 2 2 6 7 8 3 5 6 39 Development
P6 3 2 5 5 8 3 4 5 35 Development
P7 7 2 5 4 5 4 3 4 34 Development
P8 3 2 4 4 5 2 2 4 26 Minimal
P9 3 2 4 5 6 2 2 5 29 Minimal
P10 8 6 6 5 7 4 6 6 48 Development
P11 8 4 5 6 8 4 7 4 46 Development
P12 8 2 4 5 8 4 7 5 43 Development
Total 5.33 3.58 4.92 5.17 6.58 3.33 4.42 4.67 38.00
Max 10 8 7 7 8 5 7 7 50
Min 2 2 3 4 5 2 2 2 26
Table 8. Strongest and weakest Industry 4.0 areas. strongest ‘factory of the future’ criterion. The company has
Partners Firms Strongest I.40 area Weakest I4.0 area invested approximately £3 M to develop this state of the art
P1 3DP Cloud system, which allows a high level of data management, by
P2 3DP MES, IoT and CPS, Sensors, e-value chain collecting, processing, analysing and acting upon the infor-
P3 Cloud 3DP, Autonomous robots
P4 Big data Sensors
mation regarding materials, products and equipment in an
P5 Big data 3DP, Cloud optimum and integrated manner (Hwang 2006). According
P6 Big data Cloud to Sim~ao et al. (2006), it is increasingly common for defence
P7 3DP Cloud
P8 Big data Cloud, Sensors, e-value chain firms to operate using an integrated MES as a result of their
P9 Big data Cloud, Sensors, e-value chain high dependency and obligation to demonstrate an accur-
P10 3DP Sensors ate level of traceability within their manufacturing process.
P11 3DP, Big data Cloud, Sensors, Autonomous robots
P12 3DP, Big data Cloud However, the relatively high score for the concept of MES,
6.29 out of a potential score of 10, also suggests that there
are improvement opportunities. When the focal firm was
the maturity of a concept in order to continually improve measured using the assessment framework, the MES was in
from their current position and also to highlight areas of the early stages of operational use. Potential improvements
development, allowing prioritisation to occur. Therefore, to to the maturity of the MES may develop naturally over
start addressing these issues, an Industry 4.0 framework was time. However, quick improvement opportunities for the
developed, tested and used with the focal firm. As the ability focal company could be to transition more paper-based
to embrace Industry 4.0 is a key to the future success, the processes on to the MES system, which are not specifically,
framework enables the firm to achieve its forecasted ambi- related to the product production processes. As an example
tious objectives (Erol et al. 2016). To operationalize this fur- of a potential improvement, the MES could integrate the
ther and allow progress on the implementation of the goods receiving or dispatch transactions to its current data-
Industry 4.0 technologies, the benchmarking exercise to base. These areas have a high intensity of transaction in
assess the current position and best practices was under- order to complete the processes and any efficiency benefit
taken (Langston & Ghanbaripour, 2016)(Langston and would be an attractive improvement opportunity for
Ghanbaripour 2016). the firm.
The results illustrated the focal firm’s technical strengths Big data and autonomous robots are also well scored, as
and weaknesses for the ‘factory of the future’, which is the discussed previously. On the other hand, the weaker criteria
main area of focus. It shows that MES is currently the identified were the use of sensors (score of 3.00) and the
e-value chains. It would be important to enable product and Table 9. Results comparison between the focal firm and its supply network.
machine to communicate further to highlight potential pro- Focal firm Supply network average
cess inefficiency, which may be evident. Furthermore, the Factory or the Future 39.08 38
People and Culture 8.49 8.08
interaction between sensors and machine could highlight
Strategy 11.78 9.50
areas of defect and help progress to a predictive mainten- Total 59.35 55.58
ance approach to calibration methodologies. The advantages
of partners being more connected through an e-value chain
would help promote a more trusted, honest and open rela- sensors, respectively 3, 3, 4 and 4, as shows Table 7. Both
tionship and share scheduling, work in progress and non- the cloud and the sensors are key enabling technologies to
conformance data. Perhaps, in the future blockchain and optimise and enhance big data usage. This highlighted the
smart contract are the technologies enabling the implemen- limits as well as the substantial room for improvement, justi-
tation of effective and efficient e-value chains (Tapscott and fying the average level 2. Organisations that use big data
Tapscott 2016). All this fundamentally reduces excessive effectively (in line with their use of sensors and the cloud)
human interaction for non-value added routines. have the ability to optimise their planning, controlling and
It was analysed from the findings that on average the responding activities to achieve agile production processes,
focal firm resides in the ‘development’ (level 2) section of systems and networks in order to improve quality, increase
the Industry 4.0 maturity scale for all three categories: yield and reduce lead time (Erol et al. 2016). Deficiency in
‘factory of the future’, ‘people and culture’ and ‘strategy’. the use of the cloud and e-value chain would suggest an
When analysing the scores from the maturity assessment, it inability to collaborate in real-time with partners and cus-
is apparent that the focal firm is close to achieving the tomers and to share information across a common platform
‘defined’ (level 3) maturity level. This could be achieved in for the mutual benefit of all supply networks partners (Hao &
the short term if the organisation enhances its use of 3DP Helo , 2015)(Hao and Helo 2015). The low maturity in the
for production, increase the range of activities of its autono- cloud and e-value chain can be explained by the high and
mous robots, and/or link its use of big data and its systems general nervousness of the defence firms about the risk of
with sensors. Furthermore, a focus to develop an industry 4.0 storing and sharing information from a security perspective
culture through a leadership shift towards a digital method- (Mangiuc, 2011)(Mangiuc 2011).
ology would be another way to achieve a more developed This Industry 4.0 maturity framework should provide a
Industry 4.0 maturity. Once the firm’s community has bought roadmap for firms to assess their level and make relevant
into the technology evolution of Industry 4.0, other initiatives and informed decisions to transition in the 4th Industrial
will be progressed and be implemented. Revolution. This enhanced technological awareness could
The application of Sensors within an organisation’s manu- lead firms to increase their productivity, innovation and sus-
facturing process is a critical concept to embrace further tainability KPIs (Schuh G. , Potente, Wesch-Potente, Weber, &
usage of technologies, for successfully transitioning within Prote, 2014)(Schuh et al. 2014). Finally, firms in the same sup-
the 4th Industrial Revolution and for optimising the usage of ply network could also view this assessment as an opportun-
others technologies. Sensors offer opportunities to retrieve, ity to transfer best practices and knowledge between
monitor and report information to users and decision-makers key partners.
(Babiceanua & Sekerb , 2016)(Babiceanu and Seker 2016) and
enable other technologies usage to be enhanced (i.e. MES,
6. Conclusion
big data). Hence, the focal firm should use this information
based on the assessment to prioritise its Industry 4.0 invest- The study aimed to develop and test an Industry 4.0 matur-
ments, which will allow enhancing its maturity level. ity assessment framework, providing (i) an understanding of
Moreover, the Industry 4.0 maturity assessment framework the focal firm strengths and weaknesses in regards to the
was used to assess 12 external manufacturing organisations transitional technological phenomenon and (ii) a clear indica-
from the defence sector. The results show that overall the tion of the defence sector maturity level.
focal firm Industry 4.0 maturity is above average for the The study concludes, based on the results of the Industry
three different categories ‘factory of the future’, ‘people and 4.0 maturity tests, that the focal firm: a world leader in the
culture’ and ‘strategy’, as illustrated in Table 9. defence manufacturing sector resides in the ‘development’
By analysing the results, it can be identified that sensors, band (level 2) within the overall Industry 4.0 maturity scale,
e-value chains and the cloud are the concepts and technolo- with a total score of 59.35 points. The results also suggest
gies which organisations are finding more difficult to that the focal firm strengths reside in its MES, big data
embrace and implement. However, the results show that big autonomous robots and 3D-printing with e-value chains and
data (6.58), 3DP (5.33) and IoT and CPS (5.17) are technolo- sensors identified as the greatest areas for improvement.
gies which defence organisations have embraced the most This robust assessment should support the firm in prioritising
and demonstrate higher maturity levels. its areas of improvement and sustainability. The information
The results show that firms: P5, P6, P11 and P12 are rela- should be used to allocate funding streams, focus resource
tively mature in their use of big data with a score of 8. and set targets for progression.
However and paradoxically, they all have a low score in the Furthermore, when comparing the focal firm against 12
use of the cloud, respectively scoring 2, 2, 4 and 2 and the other manufacturing organisations in its supply network, it
was revealed that it performs above average (55.58). Acknowledgements

Interestingly the trend seems to be similar where big data
The authors would like to thank the focal firm for the access, support
and 3D-printing are the most advanced features and sensors, and the contribution of its employees as well as The Manufacturing
the cloud and the e-value chain are the least developed Institute. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
technologies, often for security purposes. Having said that it agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
is a clear sub-optimisation as the sensors, the cloud and the
e-value chain are the enablers to push organisations to fully
Disclosure statement
utilise big data and the MES and to transition to the new
era: the 4th Industrial Revolution. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
It is recommended that the focal firm uses this assess-
ment results to share best practices and knowledge with its
Notes on contributors
key partners, so a long-term and comprehensive roadmap
can be implemented. Lee Bibby is a Production Project Control Manager
We acknowledge the key limitations of the study. First, who works within the Manufacturing Defence
the sample for the external assessment is reasonably low, Industry. Lee has worked within the Manufacturing
Defence Industry for 8 years within a variety of roles
which makes the generalisation of the results to be taken from Manufacturing Engineering to Project
with precautions. However, gaining access to defence firms Management. Lee’s early academic career focussed on
can prove difficult and we strongly believe that as a first Electronic and Electrical Engineering but more recently
study, it contributes to understanding further the defence has focussed on Manufacturing Leadership,
Manufacturing Technology Evolution and Operations
sector level and practices in terms of Industry 4.0. Second,
Management. Lee has a passion, enthusiasm and interest in the manu-
the empirically developed measurement items constituting facturing industry, in particular the developments around Industry 4.0
the maturity framework could be developed and validated and the Factory of the Future topics.
further, this would enable the decision-makers to have an
even greater confidence in the results. Finally, we recog-
nised that the current design of the framework might Dr Benjamin Dehe is a Senior Lecturer in Operations
favour an organisation that performed very well in one Management at Huddersfield Business School, UK. He
focuses his research and work in the application of
technological characteristic (i.e.: 3D-Printing), as it would operations excellence, lean and six-sigma concepts
significantly increase the overall maturity level, as opposed and theories in manufacturing, built environment and
to a firm that has consistent and balanced technological sport. Recently he has focused aspect of his research
strategy and practices. It is recognised that gaps may be on big data, new technologies and Industry 4.0. His
work, which has been published in national and inter-
present in the design of the conceptual framework, as con-
national journals such as: International Journal of
cepts such as cyber physical systems, machine learning, Operations and Production Management, Expert Systems with Applications,
blockchain, smart contract and virtual and augmented real- International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management and
ity have not been fully captured individually within the Production Planning and Control, revolve predominantly around the deci-
Industry 4.0 framework. sion-making processes.
The areas for future research should focus on improving
ORCID
the accuracy of the assessment tool, as well as testing its
generalisation to other firms and in other sectors, for Benjamin Dehe http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3016-1871
instance in the aerospace, pharmaceutical and automotive
industries. To improve the accuracy of the assessment model,
a larger sample of participants would increase the credibility References
of the model outputs.
At the macro level, we believe this study will enable Babiceanu, R. F., and R. Seker. 2015. “Manufacturing Cyber-Physical
Systems Enabled by Complex Event Processing and Big Data
firms to have a deeper understanding of this new techno-
Environments: A Framework for Development.” Service Orientation in
logical phenomenon: Industry 4.0, and will allow organisa- Holonic and Multi-Agent Manufacturing 594 (1): 165–173.
tions to appreciate the features and characteristics that will Babiceanu, R. F., and R. Seker. 2016. “Big Data and Virtualization for
define the 4th Industrial revolution. Certainly, at the micro Manufacturing Cyber-Physical Systems: A Survey of the Current Status
level, the focal firm and the partners’ organisations are capi- and Future Outlook.” Computer in Industry 81 (1): 128–137.
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2016.02.004
talising on these findings to prioritise their Industry 4.0
Backlund, F., D. Chroneer, and E. Sundqvist. 2014. “Project Management
strategy and they trust this is critical to remain ahead of Maturity Models - a Critical Review: A Case Study within Swedish
the curve. These consist of the main practical contributions Engineering and Construction Organisations.” Procedia Social and
of our study. Moreover, from a theoretical perspective, this Behavioural Sciences 119 (1): 837–846. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.094
research will impulse the discussion around the definition Baumers, M., P. Dickens, C. Tuck, and R. Hague. 2016. “The Cost of
Additive Manufacturing: machine Productivity, Economies of Scale
of Industry 4.0 and provides a first academic led assessment
and Technology-Push.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change
model. It will also set an early measurement point for the 102: 193–201. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.015
future, when scholars will analyse the evolution of Industry €ppelbusz. 2009. “Developing Maturity
Becker, J., R. Knackstedt, and J. Po
4.0 and establish how the trends will have evolved. Models for IT Management: A Procedure Model and Its Application.”
Business and Information Systems Engineering 1 (3): 213–22. Gim enez, C., and H. R. Lourenço. 2008. “e-SCM: internet’s Impact on
doi:10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5 Supply Chain Processes.” The International Journal of Logistics
Berman, B. 2012. “3-D Printing: The New Industrial Revolution.” Business Management 19 (3): 309–343. doi:10.1108/09574090810919189
Horizons 55 (2): 155–62. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003 Glas, A. 2016. “The Impact of Industry 4.0 on Procurement and Supply
Better Policies for Better Lives. 2016. Enabling the Next Production Management: A Conceptual and Qualitative Analysis.” International
Revolution: the Future of Manufacturing and Services - Interim Report. Journal of Business and Management Invention 5 (6): 55–66.
Paris: OECD. Goodson, R. 2002. “Read a Plant - Fast.” Harvard Business Review 1 (1):
Bitzinger, R. A. 2015. “Defense Industries in Asia and the 1–11.
Technonationalist Impulse.” Contemporary Security Policy 36 (3): Gray, S. 2016. “Advanced Technologies/Robotics Shaping the Future of
453–72. doi:10.1080/13523260.2015.1111649 Manufacturing.” Area Development Site and Facility Planning 51 (4): 14–5.
Boddy, M. 2017. “High Technology Industry, Regional Development and Great Britain 2017. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial
Defence Manufacturing: A Case Study in the UK Sunbelt.” In Strategy. Industrial Strategy: Building a Britain fit for the future.
Managing the City: The Aims and Impacts of Urban Policy, edited by B. Gu, X., X. Jin, J. Ni, and Y. Koren. 2015. “Manufacturing System Design
Robson, 60–83. London: Routledge. for Resilience.” Procedia CIRP 36 (1): 135–140. doi:10.1016/
Bogue, R. 2013. “3D Printing: The Dawn of a New Era in j.procir.2015.02.075
Manufacturing?.” Assembly Automation 33 (4): 307–11. doi:10.1108/AA- Gubbi, J., B. Rajkumar, M. Slaven, and P. Marimuthu. 2013. “Internet of
06-2013-055 Things (IoT): a Vision, Architectural Elements, and Future Directions.”
Brettel, M., N. Friederichsen, M. Keller, and M. Rosenberg. 2014. “How Future Generation Computer Systems 29 (7):1645–1660. doi:10.1016/
Virtualization, Decentralization and Network Building Change the j.future.2013.01.010
Manufacturing Landscape: An Industry 4.0 Perspective.” International Hao, Y., and P. Helo. 2015. “The Role of Wearable Devices in Meeting the
Journal of Mechanical, Industrial Science and Engineering 8 (1): 37–44. Needs of Cloud Manufacturing: A Case Study.” Robotics and
Brintrup, A., D. Ranasinghe, and D. McFarlane. 2010. “RFID Opportunity Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 1 (1): 1–12.
Analysis for Leaner Manufacturing.” International Journal of Production Helo, P., M. Suorsa, Y. Hao, and P. Anussornnitisarn. 2014. “Toward a
Research 48 (9): 2745–2764. doi:10.1080/00207540903156517 Cloud-Based Manufacturing Execution System for Distributed
Casey, L. 2009. “Prototype Pronto.” Packaging Digest 46 (8): 54–56. Manufacturing.” Computers in Industry 65 (4): 646–656. doi:10.1016/
Choi, B., and B. Kim. 2002. “MES (Manufacturing Execution System) j.compind.2014.01.015
Architecture for FMS Compatible to ERP (Enterprise Planning Hermann, M., T. Pentek, and B. Otto. 2015. “Design Principles for
Industrie 4.0 Scenarios: A Literature Review.” Technische Universita €t
System).” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
Dortmund 1 (1): 1–20.
15 (3): 274–284. doi:10.1080/09511920110059106
Hwang, Y. 2006. “The Practices of Integrating Manufacturing Execution
Cottyn, J., H. Van Landeghem, K. Stockman, and S. Derammelaere. 2011.
System and Six Sigma Methodology.” The International Journal of
“A Method to Align a Manufacturing Execution System with Lean
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 30 (7-8): 761–768. doi:10.1007/
Objectives.” International Journal of Production Research 49 (14):
s00170-005-0090-1
4397–4413. doi:10.1080/00207543.2010.548409
IMPULS 2016. Industrie 4.0-Readiness Online Self-Check for Businesses.
Dehe, B., and D. Bamford. 2015. “Development, Test and Comparison of
industrie40-readiness. Retrieved January 1, 2017. https://www.indus-
Two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Models: A Case of
trie40-readiness.de/?sid¼62931andlang¼en
Healthcare Infrastructure Location.” Expert Systems with Applications
Jiang, R., R. Kleer, and F. T. Piller. 2017. “Predicting the Future of
42 (19): 6717–6727. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.04.059
Additive Manufacturing: A Delphi Study on Economic and Societal
Dehe, B., and D. Bamford. 2017. “Quality Function Deployment and
Implications of 3D Printing for 2030.” Technological Forecasting and
Operational Design Decisions–a Healthcare Infrastructure
Social Change 117: 84–97. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.006
Development Case Study.” Production Planning and Control 28 (14):
Kagermann, H., J. Helbig, A. Hellinger, and W. Wahlster. 2013.
1177–1192. doi:10.1080/09537287.2017.1350767 “Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative
Dombrowski, U., and T. Wagner. 2014. “Mental Strain as Field of Action
INDUSTRIE 4.0 Securing the Future of German Manufacturing
in the 4th Industrial Revolution.” Procedia CIRP 17 (1): 100–105. Industry.” Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group 1 (1): 1–20.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.01.077 Lan, H., Y. Ding, J. Hong, H. Huang, and B. Lu. 2004. “A Web-Based
Ebner, G., and J. Bechtold. 2012. “Are Manufacturing Companies Ready Manufacturing Service System for Rapid Product Development.”
to Go Digital?” Capgemini Study 1–15. Computers in Industry 54 (1): 51–67. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2003.07.006
EEF - The Manufacturers’ Organisation 2016. “The 4th Industrial Langston, C., and A. N. Ghanbaripour. 2016. “A Managment Maturity
Revolution (4IR): A primer for manufacturers.” EEF. Accessed February Model (MMM) for Project-Based Organisation Performance
10 2017. https://www.eef.org.uk/resources-and-knowledge/research- Assessment.” Construction Economics and Building 16 (4): 68–85.
and-intelligence/industry-reports/the-4th-industrial-revolution-a-primer- doi:10.5130/AJCEB.v16i4.5028
for-manufacturers Lanza, G., B. Haefner, and A. Kraemer. 2015. “Optimization of Selective
Erol, S., A. J€ager, P. Hold, K. Ott, and W. Sihn. 2016. “Tangible Industry Assembly and Adaptive Manufacturing by Means of Cyber-Physical
4.0: A Scenario-Based Approach to Learning for the Future of System Based Matching.” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology
Production.” Procedia CIRP 54: 13–8. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.162 64 (1): 399–402. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2015.04.123
Fatorachian, H., and H. Kazemi. 2018. “A Critical Investigation of Industry Lasi, H., P. Fettke, H.-G. Kemper, T. Feld, and M. Hoffmann. 2014.
4.0 in Manufacturing: Theoretical Operationalisation Framework.” “Industry 4.0.” Business and Information Systems Engineering 6 (4):
Production Planning and Control 29 (3): 1–12. doi:10.1080/09537287. 239–242. doi:10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4
2018.1424960 Lee, J. 2013. “Industry 4.0 in Big Data Environment.” German Harting
Gao, R., L. Wang, R. Teti, D. Dornfeld, S. Kumara, M. Mori, and M. Helu. Magazine 1 (1): 8–10.
2015. “Cloud-Enabled Prognosis for Manufacturing.” CIRP Annals - Lee, J., H. A. Kao, and S. Yang. 2014. “Service Innovation and Smart
Manufacturing Technology 64 (2): 749–72. doi:10.1016/ Analytics for Industry 4.0 and Big Data Environment.” Procedia Cirp
j.cirp.2015.05.011 16: 3–8. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.02.001
Gebler, M., A. Uiterkamp, and C. Visser. 2014. “A Global Sustainability Lucke, D., C. Constantinescu, and E. Westk€amper. 2008. “Smart Factory -
Perspective on 3D Printing Technologies.” Energy Policy 74 (1): a Step towards the Next Generation of Manufacturing.” Manufacturing
158–167. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.033 Systems and Technologies: The 41st CIRP Conference on Manufacturing
Geissbauer, R., R. Weissbarth, and J. Wetzstein. 2016. Procurement 4.0: Systems 1 (1): 115–118.
Are you ready for the digital revolution?. PWC. Li, B., L. Zhang, S. Wang, F. Tao, J. Cao, and X. Jiang. 2010. “Cloud
Gilchrist, A. 2016. Industry 4.0: the industrial internet of things. Bangken, Manufacturing: A New Service-Oriented Networked Manufacturing
Nonthaburi, Thailand: Apress. Model.” Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems 16 (1): 1–7.
pez, T. S., D. C. Ranasinghe, M. Harrison, and D. McFarlane. 2012.

Lo Schniederjans, D. G. 2017. “Adoption of 3D-Printing Technologies in
“Adding Sense to the Internet of Things.” Personal and Ubiquitous Manufacturing: A Survey Analysis.” International Journal of Production
Computing 16 (3): 291–308. doi:10.1007/s00779-011-0399-8 Economics 183: 287–298. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.11.008
Lorentz, M., M. R€ usmann, R. Strack, K. Lueth, and, and M. Bolle. 2015. Schrauf, S., and P. Berttram. 2016. “How Digitization Makes the Supply
“Man and Machine in Industry 4.0: How Will Technology Transform Chain More Efficient, Agile, and Customer-Focused.” PWC 1 (1): 1–32.
the Industrial Workforce through 2025?.” The Boston Consulting Group Schuh, G., T. Potente, R. Varandani, and T. Schmitz. 2014. “Global
1 (1): 1–36. Footprint Design Based on Genetic Algorithms – an ‘Industry 4.0’
Mangiuc, D. 2011. “Enterprise 2.0 – Is the Market Ready?” Journal of Perspective.” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 63 (1): 433–436.
Accounting and Management Information Systems 16 (1): 179–534. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2014.03.121
Markoff, J. 2016. Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Schuh, G., T. Potente, C. Wesch-Potente, A. R. Weber, and J. P. Prote.
Ground between Humans and Robots. New York: HarperCollins. 2014. “Collaboration Mechanisms to Increase Productivity in the
McKinsey. 2016. “Industry 4.0 at McKinsey’s Model Factories.” Mckinsey Context of Industrie 4.0.” Procedia CIRP 19 (1): 51–56. doi:10.1016/
and Company 1 (1): 1–12.
j.procir.2014.05.016
Monostori, L. 2014. “Cyber-Physical Production Systems: Roots,
Schwab, K. 2017. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. New York: Crown
Expectations and RandD Challenges.” Procedia CIRP 17 (1): 9–13.
Business.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.03.115
Shaev, Y. 2014. “From the Sociology of Things to the “Internet of
Pearson, M. 2013. “Digitizing the Value Chain.” Pearson on Excellence
Things.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 149 (1): 874–878.
1 (1): 22–23.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.266
Pethig, F., B. Kroll, O. Niggemann, A. Maier, T. Tack, and M. Maag. 2012.
Sim~ao, J. M., P. C. Stadzisz, and G. Morel. 2006. “Manufacturing Execution
“A generic synchronized data acquisition solution for distributed auto-
Systems for Customized Production.” Journal of Materials Processing
mation systems”. Paper presented at In Emerging Technologies &
Factory Automation (ETFA), the 17th IEEE International Conference, Technology 179 (1–3): 268–75. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.03.064
September 17th. Souza das Neves, J., F. Silva Marins, G. Akabane, and R. Kanaane. 2015.
Petrovic, V., J. Gonzalez, O. Ferrando, J. Gordillo, J. Puchades, and L. “Deployment the MES (Manufacturing Execution System) Aiming to
Grin~an. 2011. “Additive Layered Manufacturing: Sectors of Industrial Improve Competitive Priorities of Manufacturing.” Independent Journal
Application Shown through Case Studies.” International Journal of of Management and Production 6 (2): 449–463.
Production Research 49 (4): 1061–1079. doi:10.1080/00207540903479786 Stock, T., and G. Seliger. 2016. “Opportunities of Sustainable
Pfeiffer, S. 2016. “Robots, Industry 4.0 and Humans, or Why Assembly Manufacturing in Industry 4.0.” Procedia CIRP 40 (1): 536–541.
Work Is More than Routine Work.” Societies 6 (2): 16–26. doi:10.3390/ doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.129
soc6020016 Tapscott, D., and A. Tapscott. 2016. Blockchain Revolution: How the
Prause, M., and J. Weigand. 2016. “Industry 4.0 and Object-Oriented Technology Behind Bitcoin is Changing Money, Business, and the World.
Development: Incremental and Architectural Change.” Journal of New York: Penguin.
Technology Management and Innovation 11 (2): 104–110. doi:10.4067/ Thames, L., and D. Schaefer. 2016. “Software-Defined Cloud
S0718-27242016000200010 Manufacturing for Industry 4.0.” Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and
Proenca, D., and J. Borbinha. 2016. “Maturity Model for Information Virtual Production 52 (1): 12–17.
Systems - a State of the Art.” Procedia Computer Science 100 (1): Thilmany, J. 2009. “A New Kind of Design.” Mechanical Engineering
1042–1049. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.279 131 (1): 36–40. doi:10.1115/1.2009-JAN-3
Pulevska-Ivanovska, L., and N. Kaleshovska. 2013. “Implementation of e- UK Network - Robotics and Autonomous Systems 2016. Manufacturing
Supply Chain Management.” TEM Journal 2 (4): 314–322. Robotics - The Next Robotic Industrial Revolution.
PWC 2016. Industry 4.0 self assessment. Industry 4.0 - Enabling Digital Valckenaers, P., H. Van Brussel, P. Verstraete, and B. Saint Germain. 2007.
Operations. Retrieved January 1, 2017. www.pwc.com/industry40 “Schedule Execution in Autonomic Manufacturing Execution Systems.”
Qin, J., Y. Liu, and R. Grosvenor. 2016. “A Categorical Framework of Journal of Manufacturing Systems 26 (2): 75–84. doi:10.1016/
Manufacturing for Industry 4.0 and Beyond.” Procedia CIRP 52: j.jmsy.2007.12.003
173–178. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.08.005 Voss, C., N. Tsikriktsis, and M. Frohlich. 2002. “Case Research in
Rayna, T., and L. Striukova. 2016. “From Rapid Prototyping to Home Operations Management.” International Journal of Operations and
Fabrication: How 3D Printing Is Changing Business Model Innovation.” Production Management 22 (2): 195–219. doi:10.1108/
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 102: 214–224. 01443570210414329
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.023 Wang, S., J. Wan, D. Zhang, D. Li, and C. Zhang. 2016. “Towards Smart
Ren, L., L. Zhang, L. Wang, F. Tao, and X. Chai. 2017. “Cloud
Factory for Industry 4.0: A Self-Organized Multi-Agent System with
Manufacturing: key Characteristics and Applications.” International
Big Data Based Feedback and Coordination.” Computer Networks
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 30 (6): 501–515.
101 (1): 158–168. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.12.017
doi:10.1080/0951192X.2014.902105
Windmann, S., A. Maier, O. Niggemann, C. Frey, A. Bernardi, Y. Gu, H.
Roblek, V., M. Mesko, and A. Krapez. 2016. “A Complex View of Industry
Pfrommer, T. Steckel, M. Kr€ uger, and R. Kraus. 2015. “Big Data
4.0.” SAGE Open 6 (2): 215824401665398. doi:10.1177/2158244016653987
Roden, S., A. Nucciarelli, F. Li, and G. Graham. 2017. “Big Data and the Analysis of Manufacturing Processes.” Journal of Physics: Conference
Transformation of Operations Models: A Framework and a New Series 659 (1): 012055. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/659/1/012055
Research Agenda.” Production Planning and Control 28 (11–12): Wu, D., M. Greer, D. Rosen, and D. Schaefer. 2013. “Cloud Manufacturing:
929–944. doi:10.1080/09537287.2017.1336792 Strategic Vision and State-of-the-Art.” Journal of Manufacturing
Ronchi, S., A. Brun, R. Golini, and X. Fan. 2010. “What Is the Value of an Systems 32 (4): 564–579. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
IT e-Procurement System?” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Xu, X. 2012. “From Cloud Computing to Cloud Manufacturing.” Robotics
Management 16 (2): 131–140. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2010.03.013 and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 28 (1): 75–86. doi:10.1016/
Saenz de Ugarte, B., A. Artiba, and R. Pellerin. 2009. “Manufacturing j.rcim.2011.07.002
Execution System – a Literature Review.” Production Planning and Yang, L., S. H. Yang, and L. Plotnick. 2013. “How the Internet of Things
Control 20 (6): 525. doi:10.1080/09537280902938613 Technology Enhances Emergency Response Operations.” Technological
Schumacher, A., S. Erol, and W. Sihn. 2016. “A Maturity Model for Forecasting and Social Change 80 (9): 1854–1867. doi:10.1016/
Assessing Industry 4.0 Readiness and Maturity of Manufacturing j.techfore.2012.07.011
Enterprises.” Procedia CIRP - Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Yin, R. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks:
Virtual Production 52 (1): 161–166. Sage.

Bibby & Dehe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bibby & Dehe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bibby & Dehe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: 0953-7287 (Print) 1366-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Defining and assessing industry 4.0 maturity levels

Lee Bibby & Benjamin Dehe

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1503355

Published online: 12 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2966

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 26 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

1. Introduction transformation of organisations to digitalise their entire man-

Table 1. Industry 4.0 main technological concepts.

To do so, the study utilises a combination of data collection

Table 2. List of the 14 selected experts.

Table 3. Maturity scale.

Table 5. Details of the focal firm assessment results.

Table 6. External organisations industry 4.0 maturity assessment results analysis.

Table 7. ‘Factory of the future’ assessment of external partners.

was revealed that it performs above average (55.58). Acknowledgements

pez, T. S., D. C. Ranasinghe, M. Harrison, and D. McFarlane. 2012.

You might also like