Guest editorial

Guest editorial

1. The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0): technologies disruption on

operations and supply chain management 817
1.1 Context
During the last five years, journals in robotics, electronics, computer science and production
engineering have devoted significant attention to Industry 4.0 and related subjects, including
additive manufacturing/3D printing, intelligent manufacturing and big data (Lee et al., 2014;
Xi et al., 2015; Pfeiffer et al., 2016; Mosterman and Zander, 2016; Chen and Zhang, 2015; Jia
et al., 2016). A systematic literature review on Industry 4.0 or on some of its specific
technologies (e.g. additive manufacturing) is provided by Liao et al. (2017), Strozzi et al. (2017)
and Khorram Niaki and Nonino (2017) among others. Although prominent scholars have
acknowledged the relevance of Industry 4.0 for management in general, as well as for
Operations and Production Management (O&PM) specifically (Brennan et al., 2015; Fawcett
and Waller, 2014; Holmström and Romme, 2012; Melnyk et al., 2018), relatively little
consideration has been given to these topics by mainstream O&PM journals, especially on
Industry 4.0 technologies’ disruption on operations and supply chain management. A few
prominent exceptions are represented by the recent attempts to shed lights on: the link
between Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing (Buer et al., 2018; Tortorella and Fettermann,
2018); the link between Internet of Things (IoT) and supply chain management (Ben-Daya
et al., 2017); the impact of additive manufacturing on supply chain processes and
performances (Liu et al., 2014; Oettmeier and Hofmann, 2016; Li et al., 2017); and the short-term
supply chain scheduling in smart factories (Ivanov et al., 2016). While in the past there were
very few pilot Industry 4.0 projects, the number of applications has significantly increased,
both in terms of demonstration and “real” factories hence give rise to more empirical studies.
Demonstration factories include Factory 2050 at the University of Sheffield (UK),
Demonstration Factory at Aachen University (Germany), TRUMPF Group Factory in
Chicago (USA) and SmartFactoryKL in Kaiserslautern (Germany), whilst “real” factories are
at Audi’s Ingolstadt factory (Core77, 2016), Arla Foods (ARC, 2016), Siemens’ Amberg plant
(Siemens, 2016) and Bosch’s Feuerbach plant in Stuttgart (Automotive World, 2016). A recent
survey conducted by PwC on more than 2,000 companies from 26 countries showed an overall
adoption rate of Industry 4.0 concepts (e.g. digitization and integration) of 33 percent, and
forecasted that it will reach 72 percent by 2020 (PwC, 2015). This growth will be further
fostered by the funding and innovation plans launched by several countries leading this
industrial revolution, e.g., Manufacturing USA in the USA, Industrie du Futur in France,
Industrie 4.0 in Germany, Industria 4.0 in Italy, Made in China 2025, Made Smarter UK. It is
argued that different industrial sectors have different pace of adopting Industry 4.0. for
instance, the aerospace sector has sometimes been characterized as “too low volume for
extensive automation” however Industry 4.0 principles have been investigated by several
aerospace companies, technologies have been developed to improve productivity where the
upfront cost of automation cannot be justified, one example of this is the aerospace parts
manufacturer Meggitt PLC’s project, M4. Here, the fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0)
refers to the “confluence of technologies ranging from a variety of digital technologies
(e.g. 3D printing, IoT, advanced robotics) to new materials (e.g. bio or nano-based) to new
International Journal of Operations
processes (e.g. data driven production, Artificial Intelligence, synthetic biology)” (OECD, 2016). & Production Management
These technologies have the potential to revolutionize operations and supply chain Vol. 39 No. 6/7/8, 2019
pp. 817-828
management (Brennan et al., 2015; Holmström et al., 2016; Rüßmann et al., 2015; Fawcett and © Emerald Publishing Limited
0144-3577
Waller, 2014; Waller and Fawcett, 2013). Industry 4.0 is not merely about integrating DOI 10.1108/IJOPM-08-2019-788
IJOPM technologies, but it is about the whole concept of how future customer demands, resources and
39,6/7/8 data are shared, owned, used, regenerated, exploited, organized and recycled to make
a product or deliver a service, faster, cheaper, more efficiently and more sustainably (Spath,
2013). As such, Industry 4.0 requires a rethinking and shift in mindset of how products are
manufactured and services are produced, distributed/supplied, sold and used in the supply
chain; thus, it will drive significant structural theoretical evolution and revolution for
818 operations and supply chain management. Whilst classical theories such as resource based
view, institutional theory, chaos theory, systems theory, stakeholder theory, transaction
economic cost theory, evolutionary theory to name a few may need reshaping, the issues of
trust will become prominent in such a disruptive digital environment, driving major
evolvement of technological singularity in the transformation process, where blockchain may
play a central role with IoT and Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Carter and Koh, 2018).

2. Introduction
So far, all the industrial revolutions that took place in the past two centuries is promoted
by altering production mode enabled by a specific emerging technology at that time
(Liao et al., 2017). The arrival of steam engine promoted the first industrial revolution; the
application of electricity led to the second revolution, and the widespread use of information
technology and electronics products support the third revolution (Liao et al., 2017). The recent
popularization of the IoT and cyber-physical system (CPS) (Khaitan and McCalley, 2014) has
attracted the attention of both enterprise and academics. Leveraging those two emerging
technologies is promising to enable the higher level of connection between information,
products and people (Ibarra et al., 2018), thereby making contributions to the current production
mode. This phenomenon is considered as the fourth industrial revolution, also known as
industry 4.0, which is about to bring about an extensive range of innovation from a variety of
digital technologies (Lu, 2017), advanced materials (Schumacher et al., 2016), innovative
products (Pereira and Romero, 2017), to new manufacturing processes (Wagner et al., 2017).
Industry 4.0 is an emerging concept deriving from technological advancement and disruptive
developments in the industrial sector worldwide in the past few years (Dallasega et al., 2017).
It defines a methodology applying emerging technologies to revolutionize the current production
that transits from machine dominant manufacturing to digital manufacturing (Oztemel and
Gursev, 2018). Some consider it as the integration of technologies such as CPS, IoT, Big Dara and
Cloud manufacturing (Pereira and Romero, 2017). However, there is a discourse arguing that
industry 4.0 is not only regarding integrating technologies but concerning the whole concept of
how to acquire, share, use, organize data and resource to make the product/service deliver faster,
cheaper, more effective and more sustainable (Piccarozzi et al., 2018).
As the interest in the Industry 4.0 research is growing rapidly, these studies do not limit
their focus on industry 4.0 itself, but seek to find the relationship between industry 4.0 and
other topics. For instance, Piccarozzi et al. (2018) try to link industry 4.0 with management
studies; Dallasega et al. (2018) investigate industry 4.0 in the context of the supply chain.
Müller et al. (2018) and Kamble et al. (2018) explore the relationship between industry 4.0 and
sustainable development.
This position paper intends to summarize the major topics in the current research
regarding Industry 4.0 and charts key thematic future research directions and paradigms.
In the following section, the paradigms and principles of industry 4.0 are concluded. Five
technologies that are widely discussed in the current research are identified and the
outcomes of industry 4.0 are discussed at the end of this position paper.

3. Paradigms in industry 4.0

According to Weyer et al. (2015), industry 4.0 can be subdivided into three paradigms: the
smart product, the smart machine and the augmented operator. This conclusion of the major
paradigm of industry 4.0 is also agreed by Longo et al. (2017) and Mrugalska and Wyrwicka Guest editorial
(2017). The first paradigm is the smart products, it refers to objects and machines that are
equipped with sensors and microchips, controlled by software, and connected to the internet
(Lu, 2017; Kamble et al., 2018). Smart products can store the operational data and
requirements independently, and further, the product can inform the machine-related
manufacturing information, for instance, when to produce, where to produce, or what
parameter should be adopted to complete the product manufacturing. In this case, 819
smart product shifts the role of the workpiece in a system from passive to an active part
(Loskyll et al., 2012).
The second paradigm is the Smart Machine. It refers to a device equipped with machine-to-
machine and/or cognitive computing technologies (i.e. AI and machine learning (ML)).
Through leveraging these technologies, machines can reason, problem-solve, make decision
ad eventually take action. Smart machine brought decentralized self-organization, thus
replacing the previous traditional production hierarchy (Mrugalska and Wyrwicka, 2017).
In such innovative system, the use of open networks and semantic descriptions allow the
communication among the autonomic components (Oztemel and Gursev, 2018), while the local
control intelligence communicate with other devices, production modules and products,
thereby, contributing to the improvement of flexibility and modularity of the production line
(Pereira and Romero, 2017).
The third paradigm of industry 4.0 is the augmented operator. This concept emphasizes
the technological support of the worker in the production system with higher flexibility and
modularity (Weyer et al., 2015). Mrugalska and Wyrwicka (2017) state that augmented
operator addresses the knowledge automation in the system, therefore making them the
most flexible and adaptive part in the production system. Workers in such production
system are likely to encounter with varieties of tasks including specification, monitoring and
verification of production strategy. Meanwhile, they may have to annually intervene in the
self-organized production system. Under the support of mobile, context-sensitive user
interfaces and user-focused assistance system (Gorecky et al., 2014), such workers play the
role of strategic decision-makers and flexible problem-solvers in the circumstance of
increasing technical complexity (Mrugalska and Wyrwicka, 2017).

4. Design principles in industry 4.0

Based on the three paradigms mentioned above, some researchers further conclude
six principles that should be considered when designing the implementation of industry
4.0 (Oztemel and Gursev, 2018). Those principles include interoperability, virtualization,
decentralization, real-time capability, service orientation and modularity (Lu, 2017, Oztemel
and Gursev, 2018). Kamble et al. (2018) conduct a systematic literature review to develop
a framework of sustainable industry 4.0 and further justify the role of these principles on
industry 4.0 implementation.
First, interoperability is the first principle for industry 4.0. Interoperability refers to the
ability of two systems to communicate with and understand each other and use the
functions of one another (Hermann et al., 2016; Lu, 2017). It addresses the capability of data
exchanging and information and knowledge sharing among systems (Lu, 2017). It is
assumed that interoperability is the key advantages of industry 4.0 as it ensures the
connection and communication among products, machines and humans (Mrugalska and
Wyrwicka, 2017) throughout the diversified autonomous procedure (Lu, 2017).
Further, Lu (2017) proposes a framework of interoperability of industry 4.0 and
concludes four levels of interoperability in industry 4.0, including operational, systematic,
technical and semantic interoperability. The author gives specific explanations for each
level of interoperability. Operational interoperability indicates the concepts, standards,
languages and relationships within the system. Systematic interoperability describes
IJOPM the methodologies, standards and models; technical interoperability illustrates tools and
39,6/7/8 platforms for technical development, and the semantic interoperability ensures the
exchanged information is well understood among different groups.
Qin et al. (2016) confirmed that interoperability constructs a trusted environment in
a manufacturing system, in which information is accurately and swiftly shared among
partners (Kamble et al., 2018), therefore resulting in a cost-saving operation with higher
820 productivity (Lu, 2017).
Virtualization is used for process monitoring and machine-to-machine communication.
It indicates that devices have the capability of monitoring the physical process. The sensor
data is linked to virtual plant models and simulation models, thus constructing the virtual
copy of physical objects (Mrugalska and Wyrwicka, 2017). Meanwhile, each device can be
virtualized and become a part of the plant model. The virtual model can simulate various
scenarios based on the monitored data. Once the potential risks or failures are detected
in the virtual models, operators are informed and they can take the pre-emptive action
(Kamble et al., 2018), thus reducing the actual error rate and smoothing the inter-company
operations (Brettel et al., 2014).
Third, decentralization denotes that companies, operation staff, and even devices are able to
make independent decision rather than depending on the centralized decision-making,
It can be achieved with the use of embedded computer, which provides the operation staff or
devices the capability of individual control and independent decision-making (Marques et al.,
2017). As the development of customization and product variety, the flexible production line is
expected to be extensively adopted. Overall control of the production line is less advisable.
However, the embedded control system can empower each device or the unit of the device to
make independent decisions, thus making the decision-making efficient and offering more
flexibility (Kamble et al., 2018).
Fourth, real-time capability refers to the immediacy of data collection and analysis, and
the real-time of data transmission. Smart factory requires continuous real-time data
monitoring and analyzing, to detect the errors timely and satisfy the new demand. The
collection of real-time data relies on big data technology (Kamble et al., 2018). The huge
amount of data regarding machines, equipment, and products are collected from factories,
and data regarding customers are collected from multiple sources such as social media or
outlets. The analysis of those real-time data may alter the ways of decision-making and pose
an impact on the profitability of the companies implementing industry 4.0.
Fifth, service orientation required that devices are capable of satisfying the needs of
users through the internet of service. As all the entities in the production system are
interconnected, and therefore, the concept of the product will extend from the product itself
to product-service (Lasi et al., 2014). Service orientation indicates that product should
be considering the users’ practical needs, such as user-friendly or convenience for
maintenance, at the very beginning of product design. Moreover, through service
orientation, corporate can achieve flexibility and agility and thus to have a quick response to
the market change (Kamble et al., 2018).
Sixth, modularity refers to the device or the components of a device is produced
following standards. Therefore, they can be assembled, replaced and expanded as needed in
the modular production system (Qin et al., 2016). In this case, modularity provides smart
factories with the capability of adapting capacity at a lower cost to cope with seasonal
fluctuation and changes in production needs (Mrugalska and Wyrwicka, 2017).

5. Technologies in industry 4.0

Lu (2017) defines industry 4.0 as an integrated, adapted, optimized, service-oriented and
interoperable manufacturing process in which algorithms, big data and high technologies
are included. Technologies are considered as the very heart of industry 4.0 as the
interconnection in the industry 4.0 is supported by the adoption of software, sensor, Guest editorial
processor and communication technologies (Bahrin et al., 2016). Five technologies are
frequently discussed in the literature: IoT, big data analytics, cloud, 3D printing and robotic
systems (Piccarozzi et al., 2018; Kamble et al. 2018), where technologies such as AI, ML,
digital twin and 5G are emerging.

Internet of Things (IoT) 821

The IoT is an emerging industrial ecosystem. It facilitates the combination of intelligent
machines, advanced predictive analytics and machine-human collaboration, aiming at
promoting productivity, efficiency and reliability (Kamble et al., 2018). In industry 4.0, IoT
can support the smart factory. It can lead to the creation of virtual networks to support the
smart factory (Xu et al., 2018); meanwhile, it provides the factory with the ability to collect
real-time data and transmit the data swiftly (Yang et al., 2017). Therefore, it enables the
remote operation of manufacturing activities and affects collaboration among stakeholders
(Yang et al., 2017). IoT can benefit the integration and coordination of product and
information flow (Tao et al., 2014), and enable the decentralization of decision-making,
interconnected devised can perform automatic analytics and decision-making, thus
improving the responsiveness to the environment change (Wang et al., 2014).

Big data analytics

Manufacturing companies have realized that data analytics capabilities are imperative for
their competitive advantage in the era of digitization. Therefore, they devote themselves to
improving skills for algorithms development and data interpretation (Lee et al., 2017). Big
data analytics and technologies can promote data collection from multiple sources, and the
ability of comprehensive data analysis and real-time decision making based on the data
analysis results (Bahrin et al., 2016). It has been widely adopted in manufacturing to monitor
the process. Also, big data is used for failure detection, thus supporting new capabilities
such as predictive analytics (Lee et al., 2017). Data quality and qualified data analysis
capabilities are key to achieve the desired outcomes of big data analytics (Kamble et al.,
2018). Therefore, leveraging the intelligence in big data to improve agility will require new
challenges, for example how to ensure the data consistency and confidentiality in a long and
complex supply chain (Kamble et al., 2018).

Cloud
Cloud computing is a computing technology. Cloud computing centers can store and compute
a huge amount of data, therefore promoting the manufacturing and production and further
bringing organizations higher performance and lower cost (Mitra et al., 2017). Cloud
computing is supported by virtualization technology, as it provides cloud computing with
resource pooling, resource sharing, dynamic allocation, flexible extension and other
capabilities (Xu et al., 2018). Xu et al. (2018) also address the usefulness of cloud computing in
facilitating efficient data exchange and sharing. Through cloud computing, data can be stored
in either private cloud or public cloud servers, and thus cloud computing can promote
complex decision-making (Xu et al., 2018).
Cloud-based manufacturing is key to the success Industry 4.0 implementation. It enables
the modularization and service-orientation in the field of manufacturing (Xu et al., 2018),
where system orchestration and sharing of service and components are essential
considerations and are affected by modularization and service-orientation (Xu et al., 2018).
Branger and Pang (2015) assumed that cloud manufacturing is expected to be the next
paradigm in manufacturing in Industry 4.0.
IJOPM 3D printing
39,6/7/8 3D printing relies on additive manufacturing (as opposed to subtractive manufacturing).
Final products in 3D printing are built up with successive layers of materials (Oztemel and
Gursev, 2018), thus avoiding the component assembly in the production process. Additive
manufacturing techniques can make contributions to industry 4.0 in terms of offering
organizations construction advantages, as it allows to produce small batches of customized
822 products with complex and lightweight design (Kamble et al., 2018). Chen and Lin (2017)
state that the exploitation of 3D technology can optimize smart manufacturing and lean
manufacturing. However, there are technical challenges in the use of 3D printing, namely,
limited accuracy and productivity, and limited available material (Chen and Lin, 2017).
Because of the technical challenges, additive manufacturing (3D printing) is still in the initial
stage. However, once the challenges have been solved, it is expected to see wider adoption of
this technology in Industry 4.0 (Kamble et al., 2018).

Robotic systems
However, robotics has been used for production in many manufacturing industries, the
modern robotics systems are more flexible, autonomous and smart and are able to
communicate and cooperate with one another and even have learning ability (Kamble et al.,
2018), leading to the next generation of robotic systems, namely, cobot (collaborative
robots). Pei et al. (2017) state that the modern robotics can perform well in most of the
processes in the smart factory, for instance, Mueller et al. (2017) proposed that it is feasible to
use programmable dual-arm robots to efficiently distribute and allocate materials in the
assembly line. Therefore, the application of modern robots can provide the factory with cost
advantages and a wide range of capabilities (Pei et al., 2017). To ensure the safe operation of
the robotics system, a device named safety eye is equipped. Once the device has detected
any disturbance in the operation, it will stop the robot and will not reactivate the robot
before the operators remove the objects that disturb the operation (Kamble et al., 2018).

6. Outcomes of industry 4.0

Considering industry 4.0 can revolutionize the products and manufacturing system in terms
of operation, product, design, production processes and services across the supply chain, it
is expected that implementing industry 4.0 can positively impact the industry, markets and
multiple participants (Dallasega et al., 2017). Pereira and Romero (2017) conclude six areas
on which industry 4.0 may exert influence. Those areas include: industry, products and
service, business model and market, economy, work environment and skills development.
Kamble et al. (2018) further link industry 4.0 with sustainable development and argued
that industry 4.0 can generate sustainable outcomes in terms of environmental, social
and economic.
Industry 4.0 has brought manufacturing industry new decentralized and digitalized
production patterns, in which the production elements are highly autonomous, and therefore
they can trigger actions and respond to the environment change independently (Pereira and
Romero, 2017). Industry 4.0 also promote the integration of products and processes, thus
transforming the production pattern from mass production to mass customization (Lu, 2017).
Additionally, production processes and operations are significantly affected by the emergence
of smart factories and emerging technologies, such as IoT, 3D printing and robotic systems.
In this case, Industry 4.0 can improve the flexibility in operations and efficiency in resource
allocation (Pereira and Romero, 2017). Dallasega et al. (2018) state that Industry 4.0 will not
only affect the productivity in the manufacturing industry but also influence the entire supply
chain from product development and manufacturing process to the product distribution.
Products and services are also affected by industry 4.0. The principle of modularisation makes
the products modular and configurable, and as a result, products and services are more Guest editorial
customized to satisfy specific customer needs ( Jazdi, 2014).
Industry 4.0 has brought a number of new disruptive technologies that have altered the
approaches of delivering products or services, hence affecting the traditional business
models and encouraging the new business models (Pereira and Romero, 2017). For instance,
system integration and complexity in industry 4.0 will result in the emergence of more
complex and digital market models, in which the barriers between information and physical 823
structure are reduced (Ibarra et al., 2018).
Industry 4.0 is transforming jobs and required skills, which have impacts on the working
environment and skills development. With more robots and smart machines is involved in
the daily operation, the physical and virtual world are fusing together, thus launching
transformation in the working environment. For example, as human-machine interfere
requires the communication among smart machines, smart products and employees,
ergonomic issues should be considered in the future system should stress the workers and
their importance in the system (Pereira and Romero, 2017). For skills development, as in the
context of industry 4.0, interdisciplinary thinking and qualified skills in the social and
technical field are required. These new competencies should be included in the employee
training and education (Pereira and Romero, 2017), to make workers and managers well
prepared for this new industrial paradigm.
Moreover, Kamble et al. (2018) state that Industry 4.0 can lead to sustainable development.
With the support of cloud computing and big data analytics, organizations can achieve cost
reduction and lean production, thus realising the economic sustainability; Employing
technologies such as sensing, detection and tracing analysis can help to mitigate the problem
of industrial waste disposal, which facilitates the environmental sustainability; technologies
(risk maps or wearable technologies) for improving the safety of employees in hazardous work
areas helps to ensure the process safety and promote the social sustainability.

7. Methodological approaches adopted by Industry 4.0 research

Industry 4.0 literature is characterized by a prevalence of conceptual papers. Piccarozzi et al.
(2018) found for instance in their systematic review on Industry 4.0 in management studies
54 percent of conceptual papers, mainly literature reviews and developments of models/
frameworks. As far as empirical papers are concerned, qualitative methods (mainly case studies)
and quantitative methods (surveys) are almost equally adopted (25 vs 21 percent, respectively).
An agreed definition and operationalization of the Industry 4.0 construct is missing
(Culot et al., 2018). While some authors have indeed sought to develop maturity models and
readiness indexes, which identify incremental levels of Industry 4.0 implementation ( for a
review see Mittal et al., 2018), Industry 4.0 literature still relies on different operationalizations
of the concept. As an example, the bunch of technologies considered as Industry 4.0 varies
significantly from one paper to the other. This poses serious limitations to theory building and
research comparability.
Finally, Industry 4.0 papers belong to a wide set of disciplinary domains. Muhuri et al.
(2019) identified in their bibliometric analysis of Industry 4.0 the top 10 subject areas in the
Scopus database. At the first place there is Engineering (65 percent[1]), followed by
Computer Science (45 percent), Business, Management and Accounting (16 percent) and
Decision Sciences (14 percent). While these disciplines were the most important ones also in
the previous investigation conducted by Liao et al. (2017), their relative importance has
significantly changed (Engineering was at the second place after Computer Science;
Business, Management and Accounting and Decision Sciences were significantly less
frequent). Besides this wide set of disciplines involved, there is however a limited number of
interdisciplinary papers.
IJOPM 8. Suggestions for future Industry 4.0 research – methodological approach
39,6/7/8 As we pointed out in this position paper, Industry 4.0 research so far is still characterized by
a prevalence of conceptual papers in the operations and production field. However
paradigms, design principles and technologies prevalent to industry 4.0 have been
examined. Whilst this might be partially justified by the novelty of the topic and the
consequent limited adoption by companies (the Industry 4.0 concept was indeed introduced
824 at the Hannover Fair in 2011), the scientific research cannot overlook the contact with the
industrial world. One of the main challenges for future Industry 4.0 research is therefore to
carry out more empirical investigations as well as large-scale data analysis. For this reason,
we decided not to accept any conceptual contribution in our special issue (even though we
received some high-quality conceptual papers). Alongside the traditional empirical methods
(i.e. case study and survey), other exploratory methodologies – such as Delphi studies or
focus groups – could bring significant insights given the interdisciplinary and “futuristic”
nature of the topic.
A further potential methodological limitation of current Industry 4.0 research is the
absence of agreed definitions and operationalizations of the main constructs. Without these
operationalizations, there is a risk that the significant relationships observed are just due to
the specific definitions considered and are not reproducible in other studies. A second
significant challenge for future Industry 4.0 research is therefore to define the main Industry
4.0 constructs (e.g. Industry 4.0 adoption, Industry 4.0 maturity, Industry 4.0 readiness) and
empirically validate them. This challenge will not be easy since both the technological
landscape and the application fields of Industry 4.0 are rapidly evolving. Researchers should
however find a way to define a common set of constructs to support further theory building
and theory testing efforts.
The issue pointed out above is particularly significant in quantitative research, which is
usually based on closed-ended questions or secondary data (requiring a precise
operationalization of the measured constructs). The almost equal representation of qualitative
and quantitative research might in this sense signal a potential issue. We therefore think that
qualitative theory building papers should be particularly welcome in this stage, to develop a set
of constructs and relationships to be tested on larger samples in a later stage.
Finally, Industry 4.0 is a highly interdisciplinary topic, involving a wide set of knowledge
domains (e.g. automatic controls, robotics, sensors, computer science, and management) and
actors (e.g. researchers, companies, technology providers, policy makers, schools). The
successful transition toward Industry 4.0 requires indeed a joint effort of the above-mentioned
actors to create a successful ecosystem (Xu et al., 2018). Interdisciplinary research should
therefore be significantly encouraged at all levels. First, Industry 4.0 researchers should for
instance try to aim in their paper more at the policy makers and the managers. Research
should indeed support the different authorities to take better decision to support the digital
transformation. Second, authors from different disciplines or affiliations (universities, applied
research centers, companies, technology providers, governments and regulatory bodies)
should try to systematically integrate the different perspectives and point of views. Finally,
the reviewing and editorial board of journals might also be broadened/hybridized by
involving experts from the industrial and the policy making worlds.

9. Conclusion
The purpose of this position paper is to summarize the major topics of recent research on
industry 4.0. First, three paradigms and six principles of industry 4.0 are identified, and five
technologies that are frequently discussed in industry 4.0 are concluded. The outcomes and
impacts of industry 4.0 are discussed at the end. In addition, the methodological approaches
in industry 4.0 research has been discussed, and future research directions and paradigms
of industry 4.0 methodological approach have been proposed.
 Although industry 4.0 has been widely discussed from multiple perspectives, as Guest editorial
technology advancement still takes place constantly, thus continuously shaping the
industry and organizations, there are abundant research opportunities in this topic.
Meanwhile, with the increasingly in-depth understanding of industry 4.0, there are more
research potentials to combine industry 4.0 with other research fields, to further investigate
the industry 4.0 with a wider scope.
Lenny Koh 825
Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Guido Orzes
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano,
Bolzano, Italy, and
Fu (Jeff ) Jia
University of York, York, UK

Note
1. The sum of percentages exceeds 100 percent since some papers are categorized by Scopus in more
than one category.

References
ARC (2016), “Arla foods reduces packing machine integration costs using PackML”, available at: www.
arcweb.com/Blog/Post/519/Arla-Foods-Reduces-Packing-Machine-Integration-Costs-Using-PackML
Automotive World (2016), “Industry 4.0 and the rise of smart manufacturing”, available at www.
automotiveworld.com/analysis/industry-4-0-rise-smart-manufacturing/
Bahrin, M.A.K., Othman, M.F., Azli, N.N. and Talib, M.F. (2016), “Industry 4.0: a review on industrial
automation and robotic”, Jurnal Teknologi, Vol. 78 Nos 6-13, pp. 137-143.
Ben-Daya, M., Hassini, E. and Bahroun, Z. (2017), “Internet of things and supply chain
management: a literature review”, International Journal of Production Research, doi: 10.1080/
00207543.2017.1402140.
Branger, J. and Pang, Z. (2015), “From automated home to sustainable, healthy and manufacturing
home: a new story enabled by the Internet-of-Things and Industry 4.0”, Journal of Management
Analytics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 314-332.
Brennan, L., Ferdows, K., Godsell, J., Golini, R., Keegan, R., Kinkel, S., Srai, S.J. and Taylor, M. (2015),
“Manufacturing in the world: where next?”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1253-1274.
Brettel, M., Friederichsen, N., Keller, M. and Rosenberg, M. (2014), “How virtualization, decentralization
and network building change the manufacturing landscape: an Industry 4.0 perspective”,
International Journal of Mechanical, Industrial Science and Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Buer, S.V., Strandhagen, J.O. and Chan, F.T. (2018), “The link between Industry 4.0 and lean
manufacturing: mapping current research and establishing a research agenda”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 2924-2940.
Carter, C. and Koh, L. (2018), Blockchain Disruption on Transport: Are you Decentralised Yet?,
Transport Systems Catapult and The University of Sheffield.
Chen, G. and Zhang, J. (2015), “Study on training system and continuous improving mechanism for
mechanical engineering”, The Open Mechanical Engineering Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-14.
Chen, T. and Lin, Y.C. (2017), “Feasibility evaluation and optimization of a smart manufacturing
system based on 3D printing: a review”, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 394-413.
IJOPM Culot, G., Nassimbeni, G., Orzes, G. and Sartor, M. (2018), “Industry 4.0: Ambiguities and limits
39,6/7/8 of current definitions”, Decision Sciences for the New Global Economy, 9th Annual EDSI
Conference Proceedings.
Dallasega, P., Rauch, E. and Linder, C. (2018), “Industry 4.0 as an enabler of proximity for construction
supply chains: a systematic literature review”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 99, pp. 205-225.
Fawcett, S.E. and Waller, M.A. (2014), “Can we stay ahead of the obsolescence curve? On inflection
826 points, proactive preemption, and the future of supply chain management”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 17-22.
Gorecky, D., Schmitt, M., Loskyll, M. and Zühlke, D. (2014), “Human-machine-interaction in the
industry 4.0 era”, 2014 12th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN),
IEEE, pp. 289-294.
Hermann, M., Pentek, T. and Otto, B. (2016), “Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios”, 2016 49th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE, pp. 3928-3937.
Holmström, J. and Romme, A.G.L. (2012), “Guest editorial: five steps towards exploring the future of
operations management”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 37-42.
Holmström, J., Holweg, M., Khajavi, S.H. and Partanen, J. (2016), “The direct digital manufacturing (r)
evolution: definition of a research agenda”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Ibarra, D., Ganzarain, J. and Igartua, J.I. (2018), “Business model innovation through Industry 4.0:
a review”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 22, pp. 4-10.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B., Werner, F. and Ivanova, M. (2016), “A dynamic model and an
algorithm for short-term supply chain scheduling in the smart factory industry 4.0”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 386-402.
Jazdi, N. (2014), “Cyber physical systems in the context of Industry 4.0”, 2014 IEEE International
Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics, IEEE, pp. 1-4.
Jia, F., Wang, X., Mustafee, N. and Hao, L. (2016), “Investigating the feasibility of supply chain-centric
business models in 3D chocolate printing: a simulation study”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 102, pp. 202-213.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A. and Gawankar, S.A. (2018), “Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework:
a systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives”, Process
Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 117, pp. 408-425.
Khaitan, S.K. and McCalley, J.D. (2014), “Design techniques and applications of cyberphysical systems:
a survey”, IEEE Systems Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 350-365.
Khorram Niaki, M. and Nonino, F. (2017), “Additive manufacturing management: a review and future
research agenda”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1419-1439.
Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.G., Feld, T. and Hoffmann, M. (2014), “Industry 4.0”, Business &
Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 239-242.
Lee, J., Kao, H.A. and Yang, S. (2014), “Service innovation and smart analytics for industry 4.0 and big
data environment”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 16, pp. 3-8.
Lee, J.Y., Yoon, J.S. and Kim, B.H. (2017), “A big data analytics platform for smart factories in small and
medium-sized manufacturing enterprises: an empirical case study of a die casting factory”,
International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, Vol. 18 No. 10, pp. 1353-1361.
Li, Y., Jia, G., Cheng, Y. and Hu, Y. (2017), “Additive manufacturing technology in spare parts supply
chain: a comparative study”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 5,
pp. 1498-1515.
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.
Liu, P., Huang, S.H., Mokasdar, A., Zhou, H. and Hou, L. (2014), “The impact of additive manufacturing
in the aircraft spare parts supply chain: supply chain operation reference (SCOR) model based
analysis”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 25 Nos 13-14, pp. 1169-1181.
Longo, F., Nicoletti, L. and Padovano, A. (2017), “Smart operators in industry 4.0: a human-centered Guest editorial
approach to enhance operators’ capabilities and competencies within the new smart factory
context”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 113, pp. 144-159.
Loskyll, M., Heck, I., Schlick, J. and Schwarz, M. (2012), “Context-based orchestration for control of
resource-efficient manufacturing processes”, Future Internet, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 737-761.
Lu, Y. (2017), “Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications and open research issues”, Journal of
Industrial Information Integration, Vol. 6, pp. 1-10.
827
Marques, M., Agostinho, C., Zacharewicz, G. and Jardim-Gonçalves, R. (2017), “Decentralized decision
support for intelligent manufacturing in Industry 4.0”, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart
Environments, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 299-313.
Melnyk, S.A., Flynn, B.B. and Awaysheh, A. (2018), “The best of times and the worst of times: empirical
operations and supply chain management research”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 56 Nos 1-2, pp. 164-192.
Mitra, A., Kundu, A., Chattopadhyay, M. and Chattopadhyay, S. (2017), “A cost-efficient one time
password-based authentication in cloud environment using equal length cellular automata”,
Journal of Industrial Information Integration, Vol. 5, pp. 17-25.
Mittal, S., Khan, M., Romero, D. and Wuest, T. (2018), “A critical review of smart manufacturing and
Industry 4.0 maturity models: implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)”,
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 49, pp. 194-214.
Mosterman, P.J. and Zander, J. (2016), “Industry 4.0 as a cyber-physical system study”, Software &
Systems Modeling, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Mrugalska, B. and Wyrwicka, M.K. (2017), “Towards lean production in industry 4.0”, Procedia
Engineering, Vol. 182, pp. 466-473.
Muhuri, P.K., Shukla, A.K. and Abraham, A. (2019), “Industry 4.0: a bibliometric analysis and detailed
overview”, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 78, pp. 218-235.
Müller, J.M., Kiel, D. and Voigt, K.I. (2018), “What drives the implementation of Industry 4.0? The role of
opportunities and challenges in the context of sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 247.
OECD (2016), “Enabling the next production revolution: the future of manufacturing and services –
interim report”, available at: www.oecd.org/mcm/documents/Enabling-the-next-production-
revolution-the-future-of-manufacturing-and-services-interim-report.pdf
Oettmeier, K. and Hofmann, E. (2016), “Impact of additive manufacturing technology adoption on
supply chain management processes and components”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 944-968.
Oztemel, E. and Gursev, S. (2018), “Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies”, Journal
of Intelligent Manufacturing, pp. 1-56.
Pei, F.Q., Tong, Y.F., He, F. and Li, D.B. (2017), “Research on design of the smart factory for forging
enterprise in the industry 4.0 environment”, Mechanics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 146-152.
Pereira, A.C. and Romero, F. (2017), “A review of the meanings and the implications of the Industry 4.0
concept”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 13, pp. 1206-1214.
Pfeiffer, T., Hellmers, J., Schön, E.M. and Thomaschewski, J. (2016), “Empowering User Interfaces for
Industrie 4.0”, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 104 No. 5, pp. 986-996.
Piccarozzi, M., Aquilani, B. and Gatti, C. (2018), “Industry 4.0 in management studies: a systematic
literature review”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 10, p. 3821.
PwC (2015), “Industry 4.0: building the digital enterprise”, available at: www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/
industries-4.0/landing-page/industry-4.0-building-your-digital-enterprise-april-2016.pdf
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.
Rüßmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P. and Harnisch, M. (2015),
Industry 4.0: The Future of Productivity and Growth in Manufacturing Industries, Boston
Consulting Group.
IJOPM Schumacher, A., Erol, S. and Sihn, W. (2016), “A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness
39,6/7/8 and maturity of manufacturing enterprises”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 52, pp. 161-166.
Siemens (2016), “ ‘Industrie 4.0’: seven facts to know about the future of manufacturing”, available at:
www.siemens.com/innovation/en/home/pictures-of-the-future/industry-and-automation/digtial-
factory-trends-industrie-4-0.html
Spath, D. (2013), Produktionsarbeit der Zukunft – Industrie 4.0, IOA, Stuttgart, available at: www.
produktionsarbeit.de/content/dam/produktionsarbeit/de/documents/Fraunhofer-IAO-Studie_
828 Produktionsarbeit_der_Zukunft-Industrie_4_0.pdf (accessed August 18, 2015).
Strozzi, F., Colicchia, C., Creazza, A. and Noè, C. (2017), “Literature review on the ‘Smart Factory’
concept using bibliometric tools”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 22,
pp. 6572-6591.
Tao, F., Zuo, Y., Da Xu, L. and Zhang, L. (2014), “IoT-based intelligent perception and access of
manufacturing resource toward cloud manufacturing”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Informatics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1547-1557.
Tortorella, G.L. and Fettermann, D. (2018), “Implementation of Industry 4.0 and lean production in
Brazilian manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 8,
pp. 2975-2987.
Wagner, T., Herrmann, C. and Thiede, S. (2017), “Industry 4.0 impacts on lean production systems”,
Procedia CIRP, Vol. 63, pp. 125-131.
Waller, M.A. and Fawcett, S.E. (2013), “Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: a revolution
that will transform supply chain design and management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 77-84.
Wang, C., Bi, Z. and Da Xu, L. (2014), “IoT and cloud computing in automation of assembly modeling
systems”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1426-1434.
Weyer, S., Schmitt, M., Ohmer, M. and Gorecky, D. (2015), “Towards Industry 4.0-standardization as
the crucial challenge for highly modular, multi-vendor production systems”, Ifac-Papersonline,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 579-584.
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. 2941-2962.
Yang, C., Lan, S., Shen, W., Huang, G.Q., Wang, X. and Lin, T. (2017), “Towards product customization
and personalization in IoT-enabled cloud manufacturing”, Cluster Computing, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 1717-1730.

Further reading
Kagermann, H. (2015), “Change through digitization – value creation in the age of Industry 4.0”,
Management of Permanent Change, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 23-45.
Tjahjono, B., Esplugues, C., Ares, E. and Pelaez, G. (2017), “What does industry 4.0 mean to supply
chain?”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 13, pp. 1175-1182.