Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (2023) 32:55– 91 © The Author(s), 2022

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-022-09445-4

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support

Shop‑floor Operators Through a Knowledge‑based
Assistance System

Lorenz Hoerner*1 , Markus Schamberger1 & Freimut Bodendorf1

*1 Institute of Information Systems, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Lange Gasse
20, 90403 Nürnberg, Germany (E-mail: [email protected]; E-mail: markus.
[email protected]; E-mail: [email protected])

Accepted: 10 August 2022

Abstract. The increasing complexity of industrial production systems is challenging employees

on the shop-floor in their daily work. Specific knowledge about manufacturing processes is often
not available in explicit form but mainly as tacit knowledge of experienced shop-floor workers. A
systematic approach to knowledge externalization and reuse is required to make this operational
knowledge available. This paper proposes a method to systematically capture and structure expert
knowledge while incorporating knowledge management and social research methods. The proposed
method’s application and evaluation occur in a continuous manufacturing scenario, externalizing
tacit knowledge about coping with manufacturing anomalies. A digital assistance system is designed
and prototypically implemented to manage and reuse the externalized knowledge. The early involve-
ment of shop-floor workers in the development phase of the prototype ensures usability and user
acceptance of the assistance system. The assistance system is developed as a collaboration support-
ing artifact in the shop-floor’s common information space. To observe the resulting productivity
performance improvements in the manufacturing scenario, a KPI-based evaluation of the assistance
system is presented. Finally, a discussion about the major contributions of this paper, namely the
development of an approach for knowledge externalization and a human-centered design of an assis-
tance system, takes place. To assess the novelty of these approaches, they are contrasted with the
state of the art identified in the literature before a final summary of the results is presented.

Keywords: Assistance system, Continuous manufacturing, Expert knowledge, Implicit

knowledge, Knowledge externalization, Knowledge management, Manufacturing scenario,
Prototypical implementation, Shop-floor

1 Introduction
The modern manufacturing industry has gradually shifted from make-to-stock
production to make-to-order production (Wang and Jiang, 2017). Increasing
individualization and shorter product life cycles require companies to be simul-
taneously flexible and cost-effective at a level (Khan and Turowski, 2016). To
achieve the necessary degree of dynamic flexibility, simple machines transform

Vol.:(0123456789)
56 L. Hoerner et al.

into intelligent production systems in which equipment and systems are highly
interconnected (Morlock et al., 2016). This evolution is shaped by the substitu-
tion of humans through automation and closer cooperation between humans and
machines (Apt et al., 2018). The resulting socio-technical system is characterized
by increased plant and process complexity. Hence, the interaction with machines
and production systems becomes progressively unpredictable and less repetitive
for employees (Thalmann et al., 2020; Ulber and Remmers, 2019). Under these
aspects, shop-floor workers gradually transform into knowledge workers, for
whom collaboration and technological assistance gain importance in production
processes (Hartmann, 2015; Riedel et al., 2017).
Therefore, production describes the purposeful service creation of input fac-
tors (e.g., material goods and services), transformed into value-enhanced output
factors (Kern et al., 1996; Neumann, 1996). In this context, production is defined
as the ‘[…] directed use of goods and services, the so-called factors of produc-
tion, to extract raw materials or to produce or manufacture goods and to generate
services […]’ (Bloech et al., 2014). The quality and yield of the production pro-
cess, and thus the product to be manufactured, is determined by the interaction of
human labor, operating resources, and materials (Neuhaus, 2007; Voigt, 2008).
For production processes, there is a variety of literature-based categorizations.
On a general level the distinction can be made between two production technolo-
gies: ‘discrete manufacturing’ and ‘process manufacturing’ (Blömer, 1999; Dan-
gelmaier, 2009; Thomas et al., 2007). Discrete manufacturing processes are char-
acterized by producing piece goods, such as those manufactured in mechanical
engineering (Bakir et al., 2013; Bartneck et al., 2008; Blömer, 1999). Challenges
of discrete production processes, especially during the elimination of production
anomalies through shop-floor workers, are usually uncritical and can be reme-
died in a short time due to the possible interruptibility of the process (Müller and
Oehm, 2019; Schult et al., 2015). On the other hand, process manufacturing is
characterized by continuous material flows, where raw materials are transformed
through chemical and physical processes using formulas and recipes (Dennis and
Meredith, 2000; Fransoo and Rutten, 1994; Smith, 2008; Urbas, 2012). Charac-
teristic of this process is the uninterrupted supply of input materials (e.g., plastic
pellets) and the continuous completion of end products (e.g., printed edge band)
by a so-called continuous production line consisting of a large number of coupled
individual machines (e.g., extruder, cooling system, printing) (Blömer, 1999). In
addition to the term process manufacturing, continuous production is often used
synonymously (Blömer, 1999; Dangelmaier, 2009; Thomas et al., 2007; Volland,
2012). For an in-depth comparison of knowledge requirements for shop-floor
operators in discrete and continuous manufacturing see Müller and Oehm (2019).
The application domain of this work represents such a continuous production
scenario. During the production of furniture edge band, the individual machines
coupled as a production line comprise a length of up to 100 m. Controlling up to
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 57
20 coupled machines comes with frequent parameter adjustments. Especially the
coating and printing of the edge band requires a detailed adaption to specific cus-
tomer requirements, which is characteristic for continuous production processes
and often leads to anomalies (Hörner et al., 2020). These production anomalies
occur abruptly (e.g., caused by a machine failure) or gradually (e.g., caused by
dragging parameter deviation) and are defined as apparent occurrences that devi-
ate from a defined process standard or what is expected (Saez et al., 2017). The
effects of these production anomalies are significant and cause, among other
things, schedule delays, machine failures, or inferior product quality, which are
associated with high costs due to recalls or recourse claims (Eljack and Kazi,
2016; Venkatasubramanian et al., 2003). The associated costs can be minimized
when an anomaly occurs, mainly through timely and situation-appropriate anom-
aly rectification. The elimination of these unforeseen anomalies in process manu-
facturing usually consists of three different stages: the detection of the present
anomaly (e.g., the color of the edgeband is not OK), the diagnosis of the underly-
ing cause (e.g., ink pump 3 is clogged), and the implementation of process-com-
pliant action measures (e.g., flushing of the ink pump) to eliminate the anomaly
(Lau et al., 2012; Patrick et al., 1999). While the detection of the present fault
usually seems to be easily manageable (Müller and Oehm, 2019), the diagnosis
of the cause and the derivation of suitable action measures are highly complex
(Patrick et al., 1999; Perrow, 1984).

1.1 Related work
Despite current efforts to fully automate anomaly correction, it mostly remains
the task of the operator to fix occurring anomalies (Webert et al., 2022). Digi-
tal interventions such as assistance systems can be used to support the operator
in conducting this task. Those systems focus on facilitating human-technology
interactions while increasing overall productivity and shortening new employees’
training times (Apt et al., 2018). Assistance systems are defined as information
technology systems that support people and other information technology sys-
tems in a goal-oriented activity (Minor, 2006). In production-related scenarios,
a distinction can be made between physical, sensory, and cognitive assistance
systems (Mark et al., 2021). In anomaly correction, cognitive assistance systems
are the main interest. These systems support users in accomplishing mental tasks
required to achieve a particular goal under the given conditions (Romero et al.,
2016). Due to the changing demands of job requirements for a machine opera-
tor, those systems have gathered a substantial amount of research attention. Mark
et al. (2021) provide a comprehensive state-of-the-art review of operator assis-
tance systems. 80 of the 121 reviewed assistance systems are cognitive assistance
systems. The analysis of the listed assistance systems shows that their manufac-
turing focus is on discrete manufacturing processes, while continuous production
processes are only marginally considered (see Mark et al., 2021). Since discrete
58 L. Hoerner et al.

and continuous manufacturing processes differ significantly based on a wide

variety of factors, including intervention complexity, and thus also have different
support needs (Müller and Oehm, 2019), additional research is needed here.
In cognitive assistance system development and design one of the critical
issues is integrating the complexity of operational problems as comprehensively
as possible into the system and facilitating practical support on this basis (Nie-
haus, 2017). However, a wide range of operational issues can usually only be
adequately described through employees’ knowledge gained from experience
(Niehaus, 2017). Since the therefore required knowledge is usually only available
in tacit form, and there is a lack of concrete externalization methods in manufac-
turing-related application areas, the development of a standardized externaliza-
tion approach is needed (Gavrilova and Andreeva, 2012; Gosling and Andrade,
2018; Gourlay, 2006; Niehaus, 2017; Okafor and Osuagwu, 2006; Shadbolt,
2005). Although many cognitive assistance systems do rely on employees knowl-
edge, they usually fail to describe their externalization procedure in detail (see
Mark et al., 2021).
In this regard, the term ‘tacit knowledge’ is introduced – in a simplified man-
ner – as non-codified knowledge gained through learning by doing (Roberts,
2000). The primary concern is with ‘knowing how’ to rectify an already detected
anomaly. In particular, the practices applied by employees and how they are
applied are of interest in the context described above. We do not aim to contrib-
ute to the controversial and longstanding discussion of defining knowledge itself.
For a comprehensive and critical analysis of the emergence of tacit knowledge,
see Schmidt (2012). For a thorough synthesis of the developments of knowledge
and expertise sharing in the CSCW community, see Ackerman et al. (2013).
Since anomalies are especially challenging to fix in a continuous manufac-
turing environment, tacit knowledge’s externalization and storage have high
relevance in this manufacturing area (Mersch et al., 2011; Smith, 2014; Ter-
hechte et al., 2019). On an organizational level, the need to capture and sup-
port employees with this knowledge is accelerated by a continuing shortage of
skilled workers, demographic change, and increased employee turnover (Hart-
mann, 2015; Riedel et al., 2017). Making manufacturing-relevant knowledge
of employees usable throughout the entire manufacturing process is a major
challenge, which can be done through various procedures – one of them being
the development and application of a method for the structured externaliza-
tion, storage, and reuse of this knowledge (Hansen et al., 1999; Jasperneite
and Niggemann, 2012; Nonaka, 1994). In particular, the initial step of knowl-
edge externalization, i.e., the transformation process from tacit knowledge
into explicit knowledge independent of persons, has been recognized as a
significant challenge for manufacturing companies (Barley et al., 2018; Nie-
haus, 2017). The literature therefore repeatedly criticizes the lack of concrete
externalization methods in manufacturing-related application areas (Gavrilova
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 59
and Andreeva, 2012; Gosling and Andrade, 2018; Gourlay, 2006; Okafor and
Osuagwu, 2006; Shadbolt, 2005).
Simply storing such knowledge in a static repository is not sufficient to
foster organizational knowledge sharing (Ackerman et al., 2013; Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995). To account for the socio-technical nature of modern shop-
floor environments, an assistance system is developed as groupware concern-
ing the context-specific support requirements of collaborative work (Schmidt
and Bannon, 1992). Groupware is defined by Ellis et al. as: ‘computer-based
systems that support groups of people engaged in a common task (or goal)
and that provide an interface to a shared environment.‘ (Ellis et al., 1991, p.
40). While studying other domains extensively, the related research field of
computer-supported collaborative work has given little attention to the domain
of advanced manufacturing (e.g., ’flexible’, ’order-driven’) (Schmidt, 2013).
Although groupware such as digital peer tutoring systems exist in the man-
ufacturing domain (e.g. Clemmensen and Nørbjerg, 2019), little research
focuses on the correction of anomalies.
In conclusion, literature revolving around assistance systems fails to ‘unveil’
their methodology for knowledge externalization. One contribution of this
work is therefore the provision of a standardized procedure to externalize tacit
manufacturing knowledge. By making the procedure explicit, we aim to fos-
ter the discussion on this issue. Furthermore, little work is to be found on the
subject of supporting manual anomaly correction in manufacturing (Webert
et al., 2022). The lack thereof is accentuated in the field of CSCW, since it has
given little attention to advanced manufacturing in general. The second contri-
bution is therefore, the design and implementation of a groupware assistance
system. The major novelty of this work lies in merging the field work-oriented
knowledge externalization procedure with the systems human centered design.
We aim to thereby satisfy and unveil requirements of computer supported col-
laborative work in the context of anomaly correction in the continuous manu-
facturing industry.

1.2 Methodological approach
To address the listed issues, the research question proposed in this paper focuses
on the method of externalization and collaborative reusability of tacit knowledge
to eliminate manufacturing-related anomalies:

How can problem-solving knowledge for more efficient elimination of anoma-

lies in continuous manufacturing processes be externalized and provided uti-
lizing an assistance system?
60 L. Hoerner et al.

The research design of this paper is based on the design-oriented research

paradigm of Design Science Research (DSR) (Hevner et al., 2004). Here, novel
artifacts are developed in an iterative process, where the execution of the process
steps is not subject to strict process sequencing (Peffers et al., 2007). A dynamic
approach and continuous feedback lead to a constant improvement of the partial
artifacts (Peffers et al., 2007). The purpose of the artifact proposed in this paper
focuses on tackling current problems in knowledge externalization, especially in
continuous manufacturing processes. This is done by developing a standardized
method for externalizing tacit knowledge to enable a structured knowledge base
and collaborative knowledge sharing using an assistance system.
In detail, this paper aims to solve these problems by developing a mixed-
method approach to externalize employee-bound knowledge and evaluating it in
a manufacturing scenario. Building on the externalized knowledge, a develop-
ment approach for a knowledge-based assistance system and the practical imple-
mentation is presented. Furthermore, an evaluation concept is introduced to test
the assistance system in a manufacturing scenario. By developing the assistance
system as groupware, research insights in computer-supported cooperative work
are given in a real-world, continuous production scenario. The development
approach takes the collaboration support requirements of the environment into
account by designing and developing in close collaboration with the shop-floor
workers. The focus of the presented insights is on the collaboration enabling
technology.

2 Approach to externalize tacit knowledge

The literature describes various methods for knowledge externalization and
elicitation (Gavrilova and Andreeva, 2012; Milton, 2003; Shadbolt and Smart,
2015). Although they all essentially pursue the same objectives, their suitabil-
ity can vary depending on the given context. Potential influencing factors are for
example the type of knowledge addressed or the knowledge carriers capability,
motivation, and opportunity to externalize knowledge (Gavrilova and Andreeva,
2012). Related papers describe specific requirements for capturing employee-
bound knowledge (Grandvallet et al., 2017; Guerra-Zubiaga, 2017; Johnson
et al., 2019). These serve as an orientation to define requirements for the devel-
opment of an externalization approach in industrial process manufacturing. The
rationale behind the specific requirements (see Table 1) is explained in the fol-
lowing section.
Since the type of knowledge to be externalized is employee-bound, the method
should be capable to partially externalize ‘Tacit Knowledge’. Secondly, the
requirement ‘Procedural Knowledge’ is derived from the necessity of captur-
ing procedural expertise in the present continuous manufacturing environment.
Table 1  Properties of methods for knowledge externalization.

Method-Class Method Tacit Knowl- Procedural Analyst inte- 1-h feasibility Σ Rating
edge Knowledge gration

Interviews Fixed Probe Interview (Shadbolt and Burton, 1990) / X X X 3

Teach-Back-Method (Johnson and Johnson, 1987) / X X X 3
Unstructured interview (Weiss and Kulikowski, 1984) / X X X 3
Observation External observation (Kleber, 1992) X X X X 4
Protocol-Analysis Collegial verbalisation (Erlandsson and Jansson, 2007) X X X X 4
Think-aloud (Ericsson and Simon, 1984) X X X X 4
Diagram Concept-Mapping (Novak and Cañas, 2006) X X 2
Process-Mapping (Berg-Cross and Price, 1989) X X X 3
State-Transition-Network (Milton, 2012) X X X 3
Sorting and Rating Concept Sorting (Gammack, 1987) X X 2
Repertory Grid (Shaw and Gaines, 1987) X 1
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators…
61
62 L. Hoerner et al.

Procedural knowledge describes knowledge about action sequences and pro-

cesses, which a manufacturing employee gains primarily through the repetitive
execution of activities (Pawlowsky, 2019). Therefore, the method needs to cap-
ture the relationship between individual knowledge components and concrete
process steps. Thirdly, the requirement ‘Analyst integration’ is included to coun-
teract some of the practical limitations of externalization methods. As Gavrilova
and Andreeva (2012) state, knowledge carriers in organizations might not be
sufficiently motivated, capable, or presented with the opportunity to externalize
their tacit knowledge. To counteract these tendencies, they suggest integrating
an analyst into the knowledge externalization process so that the process is not
solely dependent on the knowledge carrier. The last requirement, ‘1-h feasibility’
is included due to time limitations because shop-floor employees still must be
able to accomplish their daily workload. The ‘Method-Class’ structure is mainly
derived from Shadbolt and Smarts’ (2015) taxonomy of elicitation methods.
Based on a systematic literature analysis according to Mayring (2012), Table 1
lists a selection of the identified externalization and elicitation methods. Addi-
tionally, it evaluates their methodological suitability for knowledge externaliza-
tion in continuous manufacturing processes. A method is considered suitable if
it fulfills all the requirements described above. Whether or not the requirements
‘Tacit Knowledge’ or ‘Procedural Knowledge’ are fulfilled is derived from the
following literature: Miltons’ (2003) categorization of elicitation methods, Shad-
bolt and Smarts (2015) remarks, and Burges’ (1996) elicitation technique clas-
sification. The third requirement, ‘Analyst integration’ is derived from Gavrilova
and Andreevas (2012) research, where they identify primary elicitation methods
which integrate an analyst into the externalization process. The decision for ‘1-h
feasibility’ is primarily based on Miltons (2003) analysis on whether an elicita-
tion method is suitable to be explained and executed in a timeframe of 45 min
to 75 min. The main concern is the invested time of the knowledge carrier. For
example, external observations and protocol analysis only require a substantial
time investment from the external analyst and are therefore considered to fulfill
the requirement.
‘X’ in Table 1 represents that the externalization method fulfills a certain
requirement. ‘/’ indicates uncertainty, which stems from substantial discrepan-
cies between the categorization results among the authors listed above. When-
ever the authors do not consider an externalization method, the method is rated
based on its corresponding ‘Method-Class’ as depicted in Table 1 (e.g., ‘Fixed
Probe Interviews’ is rated as ‘Interviews’). The literature research carried out
in the first quarter of 2020 was developed with the help of the following aca-
demic search engines: Emerald Insight, De Gruyter, ScienceDirect, Research-
Gate, IEEE Xplore, SAGE journals, SpringerLink, OPAC, and GoogleScholar.
The search terms used include: ’Knowledge Externalization’, ’Knowledge
Elicitation’, ’Knowledge Acquisition’, and the specification with phrases such
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 63
as ’Manufacturing’, ’Shop-Floor’, ’Methods’ and ’Techniques’. Table 1 shows
only an excerpt of elicitation and externalization methods available in the lit-
erature. For a more comprehensive summary and categorization see, for exam-
ple, Burge (1996) or Shadbolt and Smart (2015).
It needs to be mentioned, that Table 1 only shows a degree of suitability to
fulfill a certain requirement. One can not derive, for example, that ‘Reportory
Grid’ is enterely incapable of eliciting procedural knowledge. Furthermore,
Table 1 might suggest that one particular method could be used to elicit the
targeted tacit knowledge with a satisfactory result. However, as Shadbolt and
Smart (2015) argue, there is usually the need to apply a variety of methods in
any knowledge elicitation program, ‘[e]ven when it appears that only one par-
ticular body of knowledge is being dealt with’ (Shadbolt and Smart, 2015, p.
190).
Therefore, the resulting methodology (see Figure 1) uses interview tech-
niques and an observation technique to externalize the expert knowledge
of shop-floor employees, which is only implicitly available. The degree of
method structuring increases with the level of detail of the externalized knowl-
edge. This ensures that the externalization is carried out entirely without pre-
determined restrictions, as would possibly be given by pre-defined structures
(Kendal and Creen, 2007). In this way, the externalization is as comprehensive
as possible while maintaining a high level of detail. Based on the informa-
tion generated from observation and interviews, structured text and protocol
analyses are carried out to obtain documentable results (Shadboltl and Smart,
2015). Figure 1 visualizes and describes the four-step process of knowledge
externalization using a combination of (A) unstructured interviews, (B) exter-
nal observation and semi-structured interviews, (C) structured textual analysis,
and finally (D) protocol analysis.
In the externalization of employee-bound knowledge, the additional cog-
nitive burden on knowledge carriers’ minimization plays a significant role.
Therefore, the process shown in Figure 1 integrates a dedicated external ana-
lyst role (Kendal and Creen, 2007). In addition to the cognitive relief, this
reduces the dependence on the knowledge carrier’s intrinsic willingness and
motivation to communicate his implicitly available expertise. The analyst’s
’interposing’ reduces the cognitive distortion of knowledge externalization
and enables an intersubjectively comprehensible procedure (O’Hagan, 2019).
In step ’A’, the analyst needs to gain a basic understanding of the process
flow. Conducting unstructured interviews with process stakeholders enables
the analyst to overview the manufacturing scenario and make an initial, rough
categorization of the manufacturing process (Weiss and Kulikowski, 1984).
The analyst thereby gains initial but crucial insights into the specific knowl-
edge domain (Gavrilova and Andreeva, 2012).
 64

Figure 1.  Methodology to externalize production knowledge.

L. Hoerner et al.
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 65
The measures carried out in step ’B’ describe the actual externalization of
process-specific knowledge. For this purpose, the analyst observes shop-floor
workers in the process of eliminating manufacturing errors and loosely records
the observations (Bungard et al., 1996; Kleber, 1992). Subsequently, semi-
structured interviews are carried out with the shop-floor employees, using the
so-called teach-back method. The analyst describes the actions observed by the
employee and asks him/her for additions and corrections (Johnson and Johnson,
1987). This enables efficient and formally correct knowledge externalization with
a simultaneously low additional cognitive load on the shop-floor employee (Mil-
ton, 2012).
To structure and codify the loosely logged externalized knowledge, a qualita-
tive and quantitative content analysis of the logs is carried out in step ’C’, ena-
bling deductive categorization of the identified anomalies and the corresponding
solution strategies (Mayring, 2012).
Utilizing a protocol analysis with process stakeholders, which is oriented
towards so-called ‘collegial verbalization’, a validation of the externalized knowl-
edge and knowledge enrichment takes place in the final step ’D’ (Erlandsson and
Jansson, 2007). In addition to validating that the knowledge is process compliant,
it becomes possible to eliminate duplicates and undesired action measures from
the generated knowledge base. By externalizing the tacit knowledge of the pro-
cess stakeholder, e.g., a process engineer, further enrichment of the knowledge
base is possible.

2.1 Evaluation of knowledge externalization in a continuous manufacturing

scenario
To evaluate the four-staged knowledge externalization approach developed in
this paper (see Figure 1), the method is tested in the continuous manufactur-
ing scenario already outlined in chapter 1. The evaluation aims to confirm the
approach’s functionality, check its practical relevance, and emphasize the appli-
cation potentials of the externalized knowledge. As stated in the previous chap-
ters, the externalization and provision of knowledge are particularly relevant in
eliminating manufacturing anomalies. On the one hand, human errors are one of
the leading causes of manufacturing downtime, but human productivity is also
mainly needed to eliminate these anomalies (Angelopoulou et al., 2020; Habtoor,
2015; Barroso and Wilson, 2000; Zhang et al., 2020). This can be operational-
ized through digital assistance systems since they provide a suitable basis for
reusing knowledge and collaboration (Dhuieb et al., 2015). One main challenge
of digital assistance systems is integrating complex operational problems and
the employee-bound knowledge required to solve these, the developed approach
intends to counteract this challenge (Niehaus, 2017). Additionally, the particu-
larities of a continuous manufacturing scenario lead to an increased need for
research on the utilization of tacit knowledge in this field (Bakhrankova, 2009;
66 L. Hoerner et al.

Dennis and Meredith, 2000), which is not given to this extent in discrete manu-
facturing processes due to the less complex assignment of individual knowledge
components to concrete process steps (Terhechte et al., 2019). The evaluation of
the four-staged approach for knowledge externalization in the described manufac-
turing scenario is done over a period of 6 weeks. It follows the procedure shown
in Figure 1 with the involvement of an external knowledge analyst and internal
knowledge carriers.

2.1.1 A: Categorization of the manufacturing process

The categorization of the manufacturing process is based on an unstructured
interview with process experts in the role of senior production engineers. Two
engineers are asked about the structure of the manufacturing process, its target
sequence, and process steps that have historically been significantly affected by
anomalies. The result is a categorization of the manufacturing process into ten
main categories.

2.1.2 B: Identification and externalization of tacit knowledge

The identification and externalization of tacit employee knowledge is carried
out over four working days based on external observations on the shop-floor. In
this process, the analyst observed 36 different shop-floor workers across shifts
during the elimination of anomalies (e.g., activities to eliminate uneven product
coating). It becomes apparent that operators usually discover a possible anomaly
at the very end of the production line, either by pre-defined inspections or by
chance. After the manual anomaly detection, the anomaly correction is also man-
ually done by the operator. Therefore, the specific actions taken by the employees
are recorded. When encountering a non-solvable anomaly incidence, a reoccur-
ring pattern of knowledge inquiry is observed. An overarching anomaly category
is described to a colleague, followed by a visual description and the request for
anomaly solution measures. After observation, the shop-floor employees make
additions and corrections to the recorded knowledge. Therefore, semi-structured
interviews with the analyst in the style of the ‘teach-back’ method are used.

2.1.3 C: Structuring and explicating knowledge

The semi-structured and loosely recorded results from the previous step were
then examined using structured text analysis. The analyst identified 228 rule sets
for the elimination of manufacturing anomalies. A rule set consists of the unique
combination of a two-staged anomaly knowledge and the corresponding solu-
tion knowledge. A rough classification of the present anomaly takes place with
selecting the anomaly category. The visual appearance of the anomaly further
refines this. The solution knowledge is finally derived from this distinct combi-
nation, whereby a quantity of solution knowledge can be assigned to the defined
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 67
concatenation of anomaly category and appearance. An exemplary presentation
can be found in Figure 3 (Chapter 3.3) of this paper.

2.1.4 D: Validation and enrichment of externalized knowledge

A protocol analysis is performed in collaboration with the senior production
engineers from Step ’A’ to ensure process conformity and further enrich the iden-
tified rule sets. The analysis clarifies the rule sets linguistically and eliminates
duplicates and demonstrably nontarget elimination actions. Based on further pro-
cess documentation, which is explicitly available, the control set is enriched with
33 additional action measures.
In total, the performed evaluation in the described manufacturing scenario
results in 261 sets of anomaly resolution rules, consisting of 10 anomaly cat-
egories, 117 anomaly appearances, and 261 specific solutions to eliminate an
anomaly. Examples of externalized anomaly categories are ‘paint and varnish’,
‘adhesion promoter’ or ‘spatial shape’. The categories are then further refined
based on their visual appearances. Exemplary tuples of category and appearance
are, e.g., ‘Paint and varnish—paint deposits on top and/or bottom side’, ‘Adhe-
sion promoter—adhesion promoter carry-over on roller’ or ‘Spatial shape—wall
thickness too small’. There is at least one process-compliant anomaly elimina-
tion solution for each individual combination of category and appearance. For
the exemplary anomaly ‘Ink and varnish—ink deposits on top and/or bottom’,
a solution measure for elimination is ‘Check all drying channels, printing units
incl. primer printing unit for correct setting according to work instructions’.
The evaluation itself was conducted in Q1/2020 for about 50 h. Due to the
four-shift system used in the application scenario, an extension of the analysis
period was necessary to include as many different store floor employees as pos-
sible. Therefore, the analysis took place throughout four working days, spread
over a period of six weeks. Table 2 shows additional data about the execution and
participants of the evaluation. For each step, the number of persons involved and
their age and job role in years are recorded and analyzed. In addition, the result
of the respective step is listed.
To evaluate the externalized knowledge, an interview is conducted with the
production engineers consulted in step A and step D. Based on their knowledge
and standardized process documentation, the possible solutions to eliminate
anomalies are reviewed in the interview for their suitability and completeness.
In the four-hour interview session, led by the knowledge analyst (cf. ‘step C’),
all 261 sets of knowledge are evaluated in terms of their suitability for use in
ongoing production operations, their process conformity, and their coverage of
the production process. The evaluation is mainly based on the experience of the
process engineers; in the case of uncertainties, an additional check is carried out
based on existing process documentation (e.g., procedural instructions). Con-
cerning process conformity and coverage of the entire production process, the
 68

Table 2  Results and additional data from the evaluation of knowledge externalization.

Process step Participants Job role Age in years Job experience in years Results of conducted step
18–30 31–50 51–70 <1 1–3 3–5 >5

Step A 2 Production Engineer - 2 - - - - 2 10 main process categories

Step B 36 Shop-floor Worker 21 11 4 6 14 10 6 36 sets of loosely recorded questionaries
Step C 1 Knowledge Analyst 1 - - - - 1 - 228 rule sets for anomaly elimination
Step D 2 Production Engineer - 2 - - - - 2 261 validated rule sets for anomaly elimination
L. Hoerner et al.
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 69
experts confirm the suitability of the externalized knowledge. The experts thus
attested that the knowledge for anomaly elimination completely covers the pro-
duction process, from the plasticisation of the raw material to the packaging of
the finished product. In order to adapt the knowledge base to changed framework
conditions (e.g., changed machinery, product changes), it is possible to skip indi-
vidual steps of the externalization method. For example, only the structuring step
‘C’ can be applied to newly integrated contents of process documentation in order
to integrate changed framework conditions into the knowledge base. This enables
continuous further development and adaptation of the knowledge base to changes
or innovations without repeatedly running through the entire process. The effort of
knowledge externalization to ensure the currency of the knowledge base is there-
fore correspondingly low compared to the initial execution of all steps A-D.
Table 3 shows the distribution of all 261 externalized rule sets referencing on
the respective anomaly category. The allocation of the anomaly appearances to
the ten created anomaly categories (cf. step A) shows a differentiated distribu-
tion. While category C-5 ‘Machine error / stop’ accounts for 19.7% of all anom-
aly appearances, the categories C-7 ‘Primer’ and C-10 ‘Tempering’ each repre-
sent only 2.6% of all anomaly appearances. It should be noted that the categories
C-1 ‘Adhesion promoter’ and C-6 ‘Paint and varnish’ belong to a similar pro-
cess, namely surface printing. In the categorization carried out with the produc-
tion engineers (cf. step A), the surface printing process is split into the categories
C-1 and C-6 due to the given relevance and need for fine granular differentiation.
From this point of view, they would add up to around one-third of all appearances
and thus represent by far the most critical category. While individual categories
are affected by only a few potential anomalies (e.g., C-3 ‘Humidity / moisture’,
or C-4 ‘Longitudinal distortion’), some categories contain a very extensive port-
folio of possible anomalies. For example, anomalies in C-6 ‘Paint and varnish’
can present themselves in very different ways, increasing the number of poten-
tial resolution actions in this category. In order to keep the effort of identifying
the appropriate appearance low, it is therefore necessary to pay attention to an
appropriate quantity when defining the categories. At the same time, the number
of categories must remain manageable with a more fine-grained segmentation of
the appearances to not impair the clarity of the initial anomaly categories. In the
interviews with process experts, a minimum number of 3 up to a maximum of 25
appearances per category is considered reasonable.
Due to the direct relationship between the appearance and the resolution meas-
ure, the relative numbers of anomaly elimination solutions behave similarly to
the appearance numbers above. On average, the number of assigned elimination
solutions on the associated anomaly appearances is 2.2 solutions per appearance.
Generally speaking, an operator can choose from more than two possible elimi-
nation solutions for an identified anomaly. Given the externalization methodol-
ogy, which focuses mainly on the experience knowledge of operators, it can be
70 L. Hoerner et al.
Table 3  Distribution of Category Assigned appear- Assigned solu-
externalized knowledge based on ances tion
anomaly categories.
Abbr Name # % # %

C-1 Adhesion promoter 18 15,4% 45 17,2%

C-2 Embossing 8 6,8% 20 7,7%
C-3 Humidity / moisture 5 4,3% 11 4,2%
C-4 Longitudinal distortion 5 4,3% 18 6,9%
C-5 Machine error / stop 23 19,7% 43 16,5%
C-6 Paint and varnish 17 14,5% 45 17,2%
C-7 Primer 3 2,6% 5 1,9%
C-8 Spatial shape 20 17,1% 36 13,8%
C-9 Surface defect 15 12,8% 32 12,3%
C-10 Tempering 3 2,6% 6 2,3%

assumed that the anomaly appearances and elimination solutions with the high-
est occurrences are of above-average importance for anomaly remediation steps.
Although the knowledge is now externalized, it needs to be integrated into the
appropriate technological tool to foster knowledge and expertise sharing. The
‘ethnographic’ insights gathered during the externalization procedure are there-
fore used to inform the development of the assistance system (Chapter 3).

3 Design and development of a knowledge‑based assistance system

The developed assistance system therefore aims to assist shop-floor workers in
their ongoing work, while being framed as a knowledge-based assistance sys-
tem. However, merely storing knowledge in a repository without considering
the social context is insufficient (Ackerman et al., 2013; Nonaka and Takeucchi,
1995). Past research has shown that one of the main challenges is the creation
of an environment where employees use and expand the available knowledge
(Hislop et al., 2018). To assist in creating such an environment, the design and
development phase conceptualizes the assistance system as groupware concern-
ing the common information space of the shop-floor (Marca and Bock, 1992).
According to Johansen’s (1988) CSCW-Matrix, the assistance system enables
asynchronous (time-independent) but collocated (same-place) collaboration.
The already externalized knowledge (see Chapter 2) is digitized in the form of
a knowledge repository and creates the foundation for time-independent knowl-
edge exchange. In the development process of the assistance system, the aim
of the previously conducted externalization procedure is to provide structure
and initial usefuleness of the system. Building on this foundation, the assistance
system integrates further functionalities to foster asynchronous knowledge and
expertise sharing on the shop-floor. Therefore, knowledge exchange is possible
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 71
across shifts, independent of currently present knowledge carriers but limited
to the same location. However, introducing such a digital assistance system on
the shop-floor also interferes with established workflows and organizational
structures. Challenges in the design approach thus not only exist in the selec-
tion of suitable technologies but also regarding social and ergonomic factors.
There are specific prerequisites to creating practical value in human–machine
interaction: the active involvement of the employee in the work process and
familiarity, acceptance, and usage of the technical environment (Fischer et al.,
2019). Therefore, designing a successful human–machine interaction requires
the users’ involvement (shop-floor workers). By integrating users, their exper-
tise is utilized while simultaneously establishing familiarity, acceptance, and
understanding of the new work processes (Schenk et al., 2016).
ISO 9241:210 (2010) presents a human-centered design approach for develop-
ing interactive systems. This development approach aims to make systems usable
and useful by involving the users and concentrating on their demands and require-
ments. ISO 9241:210 claims to increase the resulting system’s effectiveness, effi-
ciency, accessibility, and sustainability. Additionally, possible negative impacts
on human health, safety, and performance that might result from using the sys-
tem are countered. Multiple authors (Nelles et al., 2016; Quandt et al., 2020)
consider the approach as best practice when developing digital assistance sys-
tems in a manufacturing environment. According to the Design Science Research
paradigm, the core of the human-centered design approach stands an iteration
cycle of four stages, which are usually conducted in the following sequence (see
Figure 2): understand and specify the context of use (1), specify the user require-
ments (2), produce design solutions (3) evaluate the design against requirements
(4). Before entering the iteration cycle, a non-recurring stage of planning the
design process must be conducted. If the evaluation (4) concludes that the design
solution meets the requirements, the development is completed (Apt et al., 2018).
While ISO 9241:210 describes the human-centered design process’s funda-
mental structure, potential methods to carry out the given steps are not speci-
fied thoroughly. To identify possible methods for each design phase, a meta-anal-
ysis of five literature reviews according to Mayring (2012) is carried out (Apt
et al., 2018; Benyon, 2014; Jokela et al., 2003; Nelles et al., 2016; Schild et al.,
2019). The analysis shows that there are 32 methods applicable to the specified
stages, which are derived from various disciplines. Among others, the range from
workshops and user-requirement personas to interactive prototyping design. The
design’s evaluation against the requirements can be conducted using heuristic
evaluation, experimental or expert evaluation, cooperative evaluation, or ques-
tionnaires. For this study, an analysis of the physical and organizational envi-
ronment, the application context, and the end-users’ technical and task-specific
requirements is performed. The resulting requirements are implemented in an
initial mock-up and evaluated with a user test. This represents one completed
72 L. Hoerner et al.

Figure 2.  Development and methods used for the design of an assistance system in continu-
ous manufacturing scenario based on ISO 9241:210 (2010).

iteration cycle. The evaluation is used to query the priority of user requirements
and, if necessary, to adapt them accordingly or add new derived ones. With the user
requirements revised, a second functional prototype is created, which is evaluated
with a user test. This iteration step is repeated with a third improved prototype. Fig-
ure 2 illustrates the four-tier iteration cycle and the corresponding methods.

3.1 Understand and specify the context of use

An initial workshop is conducted to understand and specify the context of use,
including one management member, three process experts, the development
team, and two experienced shop-floor workers (users). This aims to get an over-
view of the systemic context of use, recorded in a document during the work-
shop. A brainstorming session is held with the process experts, management,
and the development team to further refine the use context. Based on the created
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 73
document of the context of use, containing a first set of ideas regarding the sys-
tem’s functionality and the company’s goals, semi-structured interviews are con-
ducted with the shop-floor workers. User stories and personas are created based
on the consolidated information of the previous activities’. These include char-
acteristics about the person (e.g., age, education, job qualification, job experi-
ence, IT skills), the task (e.g., typical work task and subtasks, issues at work and
improvement suggestions, the overall goal of using the system), the environment
(e.g., lightning, noise, security and health concerns, social environment) as well
as the current working equipment (hardware and software usability, improvement
suggestions) (ISO/IEC 25063, 2014; Maguire, 2013; Nelles et al., 2016). Sub-
sequently, the documented context of use is evaluated by shop-floor workers in
a focus group. Non-confirming and irrelevant information is adjusted, and new
information is integrated into a final context of use document. Whenever further
relevant information is gathered in the following iterations, the context of use is
adjusted accordingly.
The context of use analysis identifies the shop-floor workers as the primary
users of the intended system. Due to increased product variety, their main issue
is adjusting the machinery when encountering an anomaly in the production line.
The adjustments tasks range from purely mechanical jobs, like tightening a screw,
to information technology tasks, for example, the supervision of manufacturing
execution computers. The capabilities to handle the anomalies vary greatly depend-
ing on the experience and qualification of the employee. Therefore, the company
aims to make knowledge of more experienced workers available to inexperienced
employees. It is emphasized – again – that the goal is not to create a knowledge
repository but a system that acts as a collaboration space where the users can inte-
grate feedback and update and expand upon the currently available knowledge.

3.2 Specify user requirements

The gathered material is structured and synthesized to derive user requirements
from the previously conducted context of use analysis. As ISO 9241:210 (2010)
states, the user requirements should be put in relation to the business objectives
and the intended context of use. To do so, the aforementioned business objec-
tives are structured by the three categories of usability measurement provided
by ISO 9241:11 (see Table 4). From this perspective, effectivity mainly focuses
on improving the anomaly handling success rate, resulting in a more precise,
complete, and appropriate troubleshooting process. Efficiency is concerned with
the shop-floor resources (e.g., time, human effort, material resources) allocated
to troubleshoot an occurring anomaly. The goal is to reduce labor time, and
human effort spent to fix an anomaly, thereby increasing the ratio of error-free
production time. The primary purpose of the satisfaction category is to ensure
long–term use from the business perspective. These objectives set the frame for
74 L. Hoerner et al.
Table 4  ISO 9241–11 ISO 9241–11 Business Objectives
concerning the primary business
objectives.
Effectivity Improve anomaly handling success rate
Efficiency Reduce shop-floor resource allocation
Satisfaction Ensure long-term system use

the specification on user requirements and are of significant concern in the evalu-
ation section.
The user requirements depicted in Table 5 are based on the sequential user
tasks necessary to achieve the goal of rectifying an occurring anomaly. The order
of user tasks represents the knowledge inquiry process among shop-floor work-
ers. More precisely, it mimics the inquiry process of an employee who does not
know how to solve an anomaly and is seeking in-person support from a more
experienced employee. During the execution of the externalization proce-
dure, observations showed that the process usually starts with categorizing the
anomaly. This is an initial vague description of the encountered anomaly cat-
egory (e.g., Paint and varnish anomaly, c.f. Table 3) by the knowledge-seeking
employee. To further specify the anomaly category, a refinement takes place by
defining the visual anomaly appearances through the shop-floor worker in need.
Therefore, the derived requirement for the system is to integrate this structure in
the anomaly selection process. In the next step, the experienced employee needs
to develop possible solution measures that could potentially rectify the described
anomaly — followed by a more in-depth description of the most appropriate
solution measure. The knowledge-seeking employee is then in the position to
execute the description and to evaluate whether the measure resulted in solving
the problem or not. This can then be followed by other possible measures pro-
vided by the more experienced employee. If none of the described measures fix
the occurring anomaly, the employees collaborate to solve the occurring anom-
aly. This is considered to be the task ‘come up with solutions to new anomalies’,
where no currently present employee is knowledgeable enough to come up with
an appropriate measure without ‘trying out’ a new solution measure procedure.
Therefore, the system needs to provide a feature for integrating this newly created
practice/knowledge.

Table 5  User tasks and derived requirements.

User Tasks User Requirement

Categorize Anomaly Provide structure for anomaly selection

Produce possible solution measures Provide fitting solution measures
Execute solution measure Provide solution measure execution description
Evaluate measure success Feedback opportunity
Come up with solutions to new anomalies Opportunity to integrate new knowledge
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 75
3.3 Produce design solutions
The design solutions are created based on the material from the previous steps as
well as a literature research and competitor analysis. The personas integrate the
sequence and timing of tasks and aid the information architecture (Nelles et al.,
2016). The user dialogue and the graphical user interface design are derived from
the specified requirements. Based on an initial conceptional interaction design,
a first prototype is created. The first prototype is built as a system mock-up as
described in Camburn et al. (2017). This method allows rapid assessment of
essential system characteristics while possibly stimulating team discussion. The
mock-up is represented in Microsoft PowerPoint and visualizes the system’s nec-
essary interaction behavior and knowledge structure. The embodied knowledge is
based on the externalized tacit knowledge presented in Sect. 2.1. Figure 3 repre-
sents the knowledge structure divided into anomaly knowledge and the appropri-
ate anomaly solution knowledge. Anomaly knowledge is further categorized as
anomaly category and visual anomaly appearance. Solution knowledge is speci-
fied to concrete solution instructions. The mock-up integrates parts of the previ-
ously externalized knowledge to demonstrate the intended information structure.
Considering the evaluation of the first prototype mock-up and the adjusted
requirements, a second prototype is developed. The second prototype is realized
as an HTML-based ’click-dummy’, a prototype that looks like the goal system
but does not provide any functionality (Sadabadi, 2013). The prototype’s basic
workflow consists of three main features and is based on the knowledge struc-
ture shown in Figure 3. The user interaction starts by specifying the anomaly in
question by selecting the anomaly category. When a shop-floor worker notices a
manufacturing anomaly, he/she categorizes them into a parent category to make a
rough pre-selection about the anomaly at hand. The second step is the refinement
of the detected anomaly by choosing the anomaly appearance, which is based
on a visual representation and further short textual descriptions. The anomaly
elimination process begins in a final step, and solution knowledge is provided. A
ranking of possible anomaly solutions is made available to the user based on user
feedback. The feedback relates to whether the solution knowledge to eliminate the
anomaly was found to be helpful in the past or not. A short and easy-to-understand
textual instruction is provided when selecting a possible solution to an anomaly.
Practical tips and visual material enrich this instruction, like pictures or videos. To
further assist in locating the anomaly occurrence, the affected production machine
is highlighted in a pictorial representation of the production line.
The third prototype is a fully functional prototype integrated into the produc-
tion line control device and is accessible via multiple displays across the produc-
tion line. Clicking on an ’Assistant’-button takes the user to the prototype’s main
dashboard (see Figure 4). Section ’A’ gives access to simplified process docu-
mentation based on machine groups in the depicted production line. This allows
for a more profound troubleshooting process if the provided solution knowledge
 76

Figure 3.  Exemplary knowledge structure of the assistance system.

L. Hoerner et al.
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 77
does not lead to a satisfactory anomaly resolution. The feature shown in section
‘B’ describes a dynamic search function to access solution suggestions quickly.
This is especially helpful when assigning a detected anomaly to the presented
anomaly category is not possible for the shop-floor employee. Section ‘C’ rep-
resents the main feature of the prototype, the anomaly solution process. As
described before, the user first specifies the detected anomaly category, selects
the visual anomaly appearance, and finally gets anomaly solution knowledge pro-
vided (see Figure 3).
After carrying out the possible solutions for an anomaly, the shop-floor worker
is encouraged to provide feedback regarding the suggested solutions. Therefore,
users can integrate binary feedback, which describes the success probability
(solution helpful yes/no) of the shown solution to influence the displayed knowl-
edge’s ranking order. Additionally, a user can provide textual feedback, which can
be used to expand the system’s knowledge base. The textual feedback includes
supplementing existing solution proposals and suggesting new solution proposals
by a shop-floor employee. To ensure process conformity, a quality keeper must
review feedback and, ideally, add the new solutions to the knowledge base. The
feedback features make the system dynamic by continuously updating the knowl-
edge structure (binary feedback) and content (textual feedback).
Figure 5 shows the interactions between the assistance system and the
described free-text feedback module. The application database integrates the ini-
tial externalized knowledge through semantic rule sets, which users can access
with the functionalities described above. To minimize the burden on the quality
keeper to ensure the free text comments’ process conformity, a natural language
processing (NLP) component is added to the system. Thus, pre-processing is per-
formed on the free-text comments by assigning them to semantic clusters. This
ensures that comments with the same or similar suggestions are already com-
bined, and the quality keeper only has to check these clusters of comments. The
entire NLP process structure is based on the clustering process of Halkidi et al.
(2001), whereby the k-means algorithm is used to form the semantic clusters
(Kanungo et al., 2002; Lee, 2019).
As shown in Figure 5, user input as free-text comments about new solu-
tion knowledge is forwarded to the NLP component. It includes the addressed
anomaly category and its description, a timestamp, and the provided feedback.
This allows for context assessment of the provided feedback in later stages.
The NLP component then filters the input, clusters the comments into seman-
tically similar groups and temporarily stores them in a shared database. The
accumulated results can then be displayed through the system’s backend by
an authorized process administrator. The process administrator, who acts as a
quality keeper, validates and verifies the clusters before entering them into the
application database. This validation is of particular importance in manufac-
turing since non-process-compliant knowledge could lead to severe errors and
 78

Figure 4.  Main dashboard of the functional prototype.

L. Hoerner et al.
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 79

Figure 5.  Overview of dynamic feedback integration function.

even injuries. The presented semi-automated feedback functionality ensures

knowledge quality, continuous learning in the system and is the primary facili-
tator of an ongoing knowledge externalization process. Table 6 summarizes
how the produced design solution targets the previously established user
requirements (c.f. Table 5).

3.4 Evaluate design solutions

The first prototype is evaluated by users applying heuristic evaluation (Nielsen
and Molich, 1990), using the dialog principles of ISO 9241:110 as usability heu-
ristics. It reveals a need for a visual representation of the workspace (produc-
tion line) to assist navigation. Furthermore, the repeated expression of the users
desires to integrate the assistance system into already used monitoring interfaces.
The second prototype evaluation uses cognitive walkthrough with experts (John

Table 6  User requirements and corresponding assistance system features to support knowledge sharing on the
shop-floor.

User requirements System features/functionalities

Provide structure for anomaly selection Hierarchical anomaly selection menu based on externalized
peer knowledge structure
Provide fitting solution measures Display of possible solution measures according to finest
granularity of knowledge structure
Provide solution measure execution description Multimedia description of execution steps based on exter-
nalized peer knowledge. Depiction of anomaly occurrence
location. Adjustable level of detail
Feedback opportunity Binary Feedback (thumbs up/down)
Textual feedback
Opportunity to integrate new knowledge Dynamic feedback integration functionality
80 L. Hoerner et al.

and Packer, 1995) and cooperative evaluation with shop-floor workers (Monk
et al., 1993). Here, requests for enabling semi-automated feedback are proposed,
which can potentially provide a steadily growing knowledge base while keeping
the operator workload low.
However, the current state of the assistance system is the third prototype where
a more comprehensive evaluation is aimed for. As data for a possible usability
evaluation is not available yet, the paper focuses on a productivity impact evalua-
tion. As Hold et al. (2017) observe: ‘The primary objectives of [digital assistance
systems] are the increase of productivity’ (Hold et al., 2017). Keller et al. (2019)
provide a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to evaluate the productivity
impact of a digital assistance system in assembly work stations. However, the
application domain of the developed assistance system is a continuous manufac-
turing scenario. Therefore, certain KPIs are not feasible (e.g., a KPI based on
‘number of parts produced’). Such KPIs are adjusted accordingly (e.g., ‘number
of parts produced’ is replaced by ‘total length produced’).
Table 7 presents the resulting adjusted KPIs to measure the productivity impact
of an assistance system in a continuous manufacturing scenario. On the work-
place-level the ‘Production Gradient’ (PG) describes the Production Time (article
being produced) in relation to the Operating Time (production line being active).
The Article Failure Time in ‘Inverse Article Failure Time Gradient’ (IAFG) is the
time of faulty articles being produced (e.g., pattern of produced edge-band not
OK). Machine Failure Time in ‘Inverse Machine Failure Time Gradient’ (IMFG)
is related to machine malfunction durations (e.g., an error occurs in the material
infeed). It is worth mentioning that production may continue during ‘Machine
Failure Time’. The sole purpose behind taking the inverse in IMFG and IAFG is
to allow for interpretation consistency. This way, an increase in IMFG and IAFG
indicates a productivity improvement, which is in line with the other presented
KPIs. The ‘Availability Rate’ (AR) is the actual operating time concerning the
scheduled operating time on the process-level. This KPI aims to identify poten-
tial downtime losses due to break downtimes or setup and adjustment procedures

Table 7  KPIs for the evaluation of an assistance system in continuous manufacturing.

KPI-Level KPI Abbr Description

Workplace Production Gradient PG Production Time

Operating Time
Inverse Article Failure Time Gradient IAFG 1 − Article Failure Time
Operating Time
Inverse Machine Failure Time Gradient IMFG Machine Failure Time
1 − Operating Time
Process Availability Rate AR Operating Time
Scheduled Time
Performance Rate PR Total length produced∕OperatingTime
Ideal Run Rate
Quality Rate QR Good lenght produced
Total length produced
Company Overall Equipment Effectiveness OEE AR × PR × QR
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 81
(Nayak et al., 2013). ‘Performance Rate’ (PR) describes the real production rate
concerning the theoretical or ideal run rate. By increasing the PR, primarily
speed losses due to more minor stops and reduced speed are countered (Nayak
et al., 2013). ‘Quality Rate’ (QR) is simply the length of products produced
which pass the quality control concerning the total length of produced units. This
KPI measures quality losses due to startup rejects or production rejects (Nayak
et al., 2013). Finally, the ‘Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is the multi-
plication of the three KPIs from the Process-level (AR, PR, QR). The OEE can
be considered as a primary guiding metric for decreasing and eliminating the
most common causes of economic efficiency losses in the manufacturing process
(Nayak et al., 2013; Keller et al., 2019). The OEE is therefore an appropriate
measure for a holistic benefit evaluation of a digital assistance system in manu-
facturing (Keller et al., 2019).
In the first step of the evaluation procedure, a pre-/post-comparison is con-
ducted. Measurements of KPIs are collected for a single production line. For
3 months (from 11.20 – 01.21), production line 48 was not equipped with the
developed assistance system. This represents the pre-stage. The resulting aver-
age KPI performance during the pre-stage is depicted in ‘Line 48 No AS’ (see
Table 8). Afterwards, also for a 3-month period (from 02.21 – 04.21), production
line 48 was equipped with the assistance system. This represents the post-stage.
The average KPI results of this time interval are presented as ‘Line 48 With AS’
in Table 8. The corresponding ‘Delta’, is the difference between ‘Line 48 with
AS’ and ‘Line 48 No AS’. Therefore, it is the observed change in KPI perfor-
mance when comparing the pre- and post-stage.
As showcased in Table 8, with the introduction of the assistance system, a
performance increase for all measured KPIs occurred. However, there is some
uncertainty whether this improvement might not be traced back to changes to
other general conditions (e.g., seasonal differences, employee training, process
improvements). To obtain insight into the assistance system’s influence, an addi-
tional benchmark with a reference production line pool is conducted. This pool
of three production lines was not equipped with the assistance system during the
same two time periods as before (see Table 9). The production lines included in

Table 8  Single production line KPI Line 48 Line 48 Delta

pre-/post-comparison, without No AS With AS
and with assistance system.
PG 66 68.5 + 2.5
IAFG 96.8 97.7 + 0.9
IMFG 96.4 98.5 + 2.1
AR 69.2 70.9 + 1.7
PR 100.2 101.6 + 1.3
QR 85.1 86.9 + 1.8
OEE 59 62.7 + 3.7
82 L. Hoerner et al.

the pool are located on the same shop-floor, are equipped with similar machin-
ery, produce the same article type, and have a similar production lot size. Table 9
shows the results of this benchmark. ‘Line 48’ is the assistance system test line,
already portrayed in Table 8. ‘Pool’ indicates the average measurements of KPIs
for the three production lines included in the reference pool. ‘Delta Total’ is the
difference between the ‘Line 48 Delta’ and the ‘Pool Delta’. It describes the dif-
ference in performance change between those two.
As Table 9 shows, the Delta of Line 48 and Pool is positive among all KPIs.
This indicates that a certain degree of performance improvement is indeed due
to other general conditions. However, ‘Delta Total’ also highlights that the intro-
duction of the assistance system increases production performance above average
among all KPIs (compared to the reference pool). The lowest Delta increase is
observed in IAFG, which can be explained due to its measurement. Error codes
such as Article Failure Time and Machine Failure Time don’t co-occur in the
production control system. Therefore, if not handled quickly and correctly, Arti-
cle Failure Times might lead to Machine Failure Times. This is in line with the
observation that the highest ‘Delta Total’ is achieved in the IMFG (+ 2.0). Since
the IMFG indirectly measures how long machine failures persist, it is assumed
that the assistance system supports employees in fixing anomalies that might
cause or are caused by machine failures. Therefore, this assistance system sup-
port manifests in an accelerated and more successful anomaly handling process.
The OEE, as a holistic KPI and the second-highest Delta Total achieved, indi-
cates that the overall efficiency of the production line could be increased due to
the introduction of the developed assistance system. Therefore, it is concluded
that the introduction of the assistance system prototype does have a positive
effect on productivity.

Table 9  KPI change comparison.

KPI Line 48 Pool Delta Total

Line 48—Pool
No AS With AS Delta No AS No AS Delta

PG 66 68.5 + 2.5 63.5 64.7 + 1.3 + 1.2

IAFG 96.8 97.7 + 0.9 97.5 97.8 + 0.3 + 0.6
IMFG 96.4 98.5 + 2.1 98.1 98.2 + 0.1 + 2.0
AR 69.2 70.9 + 1.7 66 66.9 + 0.9 + 0.8
PR 100.2 101.6 + 1.3 99.8 100 + 0.2 + 1.2
QR 85.1 86.9 + 1.8 85 86.2 + 1.2 + 0.6
OEE 59 62.7 + 3.7 56.3 57.8 + 1.5 + 1.5
Time Period 11.20 02.21 11.20 02.21
– – – –
01.21 04.21 01.21 04.21
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 83
4 Discussion and outlook
4.1 Implications
The implications of this study are relevant to both research and practice. Consid-
ering the progressive change from shop-floor workers to knowledge workers in
increasingly complex manufacturing environments, it is apparent that systemic
knowledge-support for shop-floor employees in their daily tasks is needed (Hart-
mann, 2015; Riedel et al., 2017). The major contribution of this paper lies in con-
ceptualizing and applying a knowledge externalization approach and combining
it with the human-centered design of an assistance system.
Through the standardized approach for tacit knowledge externalization,
employee-bound knowledge can be codified and shared time-independently. We
outlined the feasibility of our approach through its practical implementation in a
real manufacturing scenario, whereby 261 structured anomaly correction meas-
ures have been codified. Although various methods for knowledge externaliza-
tion exist, a combination thereof is missing in the context of shop-floor practices.
The lack of literature in this domain makes it hard to contrast our work with oth-
ers. By presenting a methodological approach to externalizing knowledge, we
hope to encourage other researchers to contrast their work with ours. To do so
we point to several literature resources on the topic of knowledge externalization
methods. Other researchers can thereby build upon, diverge from, and analyze
our and previous methods from differing epistemological traditions.
By combining the knowledge externalization insights with the assistance sys-
tem design, the systems interaction structure is mimicking the knowledge inquiry
process among shop-floor workers. We hypothesize that this, in combination with
the development and design of the system in close collaboration with shop-floor
workers, warrants knowledge representation and knowledge retrieval tailored to
the shop-floor requirements. Furthermore, by integrating the externalized knowl-
edge into the system, we claim to provide initial usefulness. Those claims are
supported by the positive effects of the system on production performance. In
this regard we cannot pinpoint those effects to certain system functionalities
or undermine them with statistical significance. A positive effect was hover
observed in a 3-month pre-/post comparison and a simultaneous benchmark with
similar production lines. Since little research has been done on cognitive assis-
tance systems in the continuous production domain, we invite other researchers
to further analyze the support requirements and opportunities for collaborative
assistance in the continuous production domain. It also needs to be mentioned
that other digital interventions can positively effect knowledge work on the shop-
floor (see e.g., Hannola et al. (2020)).
Moreover, the system integrates employee feedback and knowledge sharing
with a subsequent semi-automated feedback processing to enable ongoing col-
laboration among shop-floor workers and a continuously updated knowledge base
84 L. Hoerner et al.

with minimized maintenance effort. The aim is to thereby encourage system use
and acceptance, potentially fostering collaborative knowledge exchange. However,
we cannot yet make claims about the long-term collaborative effects of our system.
In this regard it needs to be mentioned that peer-tutoring systems could for exam-
ple foster collaborative knowledge exchange equally well. According to Johansen’s
(1988) CSCW-Matrix, our system supports collocated, but time-independent collab-
oration. Therefore, it should be emphasized that investigations on the topic of same
time and different place groupware could also lead to equally beneficial results.
There are several factors which support the validity of this design science
research approach (on the validity of design science, see for example Hevner
et al. (2004)). Since shop-floor workers require additional knowledge support,
utility is provided through a system which allows the workers to access and
share their anomaly correction knowledge. Through the systems design they
gain a common information space to time-independently collaborate on solving
anomalies, which is especially crucial for less experienced employees. The nov-
elty of the created artefacts (externalization method, assistance system) lies in
the combination of already existing methods, tailored to the context of continu-
ous manufacturing and the practical implementation thereof. The claims of util-
ity are supported by the outcomes of the externalization method (261 structured
anomaly correction measures) and the created system (positive effects on pro-
ductivity). As mentioned before, we did not finish a usability evaluation for the
system. Claims of ease of use can therefore not be supported through data. We
believe however, that the human-centered design in collaboration with shop-floor
workers promotes usability of the system. In summary, the possible advantages
of the externalization and provision of knowledge through the developed assis-
tance system are diverse. They include, among others, a faster training period for
new employees, increased process stability due to faster anomaly correction, and
the depreciation of scrap production and thus costs.

4.2 Limitations
This paper’s results must be considered under certain limitations that need to be
addressed in future studies about the results’ generalizability. First, the developed
method for knowledge externalization has only been carried out in a single real
manufacturing scenario. Prospective studies must be made in different manufac-
turing scenarios to provide further generalizability. Second, as the knowledge
database is continuously updated and evolves with the users’ knowledge through
feedback integration, it is crucial to implement incentive structures for users to
share their knowledge. Gamification is a suitable approach for knowledge-shar-
ing incentive design (Friedrich et al., 2020). Integrating gamification features,
such as rewardability, visibility, and competition incentives, will be part of future
research (Ayoung and Christian, 2017). Third, the knowledge-based assistance
system’s evaluation mainly aims to affect the overall productivity performance
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 85
positively. Once sufficient usage data and experience are available for the third
iteration of the prototype, it is considered necessary to carry out a usability eval-
uation. Finally, the presented assistance system is conceptualized as groupware
and focuses on technological research. Consequently, the social, psychological,
and organizational implications are not the focus of this paper and have therefore
not been analyzed comprehensively (Rama and Bishop, 2006).

4.3 Conclusion
The systemic knowledge support of shop-floor employees in their daily tasks con-
stitutes a significant concern in operations research and practice. This paper pre-
sents a novel approach to leverage anomaly elimination knowledge by developing
a standardized knowledge externalization methodology. The subsequent design
and prototypical development of a knowledge-based assistance system creates an
operationalization and collaborative reuse of externalized knowledge. Integrating a
semi-automated user feedback function ensures that the knowledge base is always
up to date. It is applied in a continuous, real manufacturing scenario to determine
its relevance and practical suitability for the externalization method. The evalua-
tion results confirm the developed methodology’s suitability by the quantity and
quality of externalized, tacit knowledge. The productivity impact evaluation of
the assistance system confirms an increase in production efficiency. However, the
long-term practical applicability needs to be discussed in further studies.

Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Follow-
ing CSCWs policy and our ethical obligation as researchers, we report that no
funding was received for conducting this study. Nevertheless, there is an indi-
rect consulting relationship with the manufacturing company that serves as our
research partner. Only in this way was it possible for us to develop and imple-
ment the paper’s results in practice. By applying the results (among others:
knowledge externalization, development of assistance system, KPI-based evalu-
ation) in the described, real manufacturing scenario, a practice-oriented evalua-
tion has become possible. Financial compensation for our activities did not take
place. The partner company hopes to gain an insight into the complex problems
of knowledge management of manufacturing companies through the research
results.
Declarations

Conflicts of interests/Competing interests We have disclosed those interests fully to CSCW, and we have in
place an approved plan for managing any potential arising conflicts.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and
86 L. Hoerner et al.

reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to

the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons
licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party mate-
rial in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted
by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain per-
mission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
Ackerman, Mark S.; Juri Dachtera; Volkmar Pipek; and Volker Wulf (2013). Sharing Knowledge and Expertise:
The CSCW View of Knowledge Management. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 22,
no.4, pp. 531–573.
Angelopoulou, Anastasia; Konstantinos Mykoniatis; and Nithisha R. Boyapati (2020). Industry 4.0: The use of
simulation for human reliability assessment. Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 42, pp. 296–301.
Apt, Wenke; Marc Bovenschulte; Kai Priesack; Christine Weiß; and Ernst A. Hartmann (2018). Einsatz von
digitalen Assistenzsystemen im Betrieb. Berlin: Institut für Innovation und Technik.
Apt, Wenke; Michael Schubert; and Steffen Wischmann (2018). Digitale Assistenzsysteme - Perspektiven und
Herausforderungen für den Einsatz in Industrie und Dienstleistungen. Berlin, Germany: Institut für Inno-
vation und Technik.
Ayoung, Suh; and Christian Wagner (2017). How gamification of an enterprise collaboration system increases
knowledge contribution: an affordance approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 21, no.2, pp.
416–431.
Bakhrankova, Krystsina (2009). Planning, productivity and quality in continuous non discrete production. Inter-
national Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, vol. 7, no.1, pp. 44–64.
Bakir, Dennis; Björn Krückhans; and Horst Meier (2013). Ressourceneffizienz am Beispiel der Semi-Batch-
Fertigung. Industrie Management, vol. 6, pp. 17–20.
Barley, William C.; Jeffrey W. Treem; and Timothy Kuhn (2018). Valuing Multiple Trajectories of Knowledge:
A Critical Review and Agenda for Knowledge Management Research. Academy of Management Annals,
vol. 12, no.1, pp. 278–317.
Bartneck, Norbert; Volker Klaas; and Holger Schönherr (2008). Prozesse optimieren mit RFID und Auto-ID:
Grundlagen, Problemlösung und Anwendungsbeispiele. Erlangen: Publicis Publishing.
Barroso, M. Paz; and John R. Wilson (2000). Human Error and Disturbance Occurrence in Manufacturing Sys-
tems (HEDOMS): A Framework and a Toolkit for Practical Analysis. Cognition, Technology & Work,
vol. 2, no.2, pp. 51–61.
Benyon, David (2014). Designing Interactive Systems: A comprehensive guide to HCI, UX and interaction
design. Harlow: Pearson.
Berg-Cross, G.; and M. E. Price (1989). Acquiring and managing knowledge using a conceptual structures
approach: introduction and framework. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 19,
no.3, pp. 513–527.
Bloech, Jürgen; Ronald Bogaschewsky; Udo Buscher; Anke Daub; Uwe Götze; and Folker Roland (2014). Ein-
führung in die Produktion. Berlin: Springer Gabler
Blömer, Ferdinand (1999). Produktionsplanung und -steuerung in der chemischen Industrie. Wiesbaden:
Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
Blumberg, Melvin; and Charles D. Pringle (1982). The Missing Opportunity in Organizational Research: Some
Implications for a Theory of Work Performance. Academy of Management Review, vol. 7, no.4, pp. 560–569.
Bokranz, Rainer; and Kurt Landau (2012). Handbuch Industrial Engineering : Produktivitätsmanagement mit
MTM. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
Bungard, Walter; Heinz Holling; and Jürgen Schultz-Gambard (1996). Methoden der Arbeits- und Organisa-
tionspsychologie. Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 87
Burge, Janet E. (1996). Knowledge elicitation tool classification. Artificial Intelligence Research Group, Worces-
ter Polytechnic Institute. http://​web.​cs.​wpi.​edu/​~jburge/​thesis/​kemat​rix.​html. Accessed 20 February 2021.
Camburn, Bradley; Vimal Viswanathan; Julie Linsey; David Anderson; Daniel Jensen; Richard Crawford;
Kevin Otto; and Kristin Wood (2017). Design prototyping methods: State of the art in strategies, tech-
niques, and guidelines. Design Science, vol. 3, pp. 1–33.
Clemmensen, Torkil; and Jacob Nørbjerg (2019). Digital Peer-Tutoring: Early Results from a Field Evalua-
tion of a UX at Work Learning Format in SMEs. In J. A. Nocera; D. Lamas; A. Parmaxi; M. Winckler;
F. Loizides; C. Ardito; G. Bhutkar; and P. Dannenmann (eds): INTERACT 2019: The 17th IFIP TC.13
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Paphos, Cyprus, 02 September – 06 Septem-
ber 2019. Cham: Springer, pp. 52–58.
Dangelmaier, Wilhelm (2009). Theorie der Produktionsplanung und -steuerung. Berlin: Springer.
Dennis, Daina; and Jack Meredith (2000). Analysis of process industry production and inventory management
systems. Journal of Operations Management, vol. 18, no.6, pp. 683–699.
Dhuieb, Mohamed Anis; Farouk Belkadi; Florent Laroche; and Alain Bernard (2015). Conceptual framework
for enhancing knowledge reuse in PLM environment with the concept of Digital Factory Assistant. Inter-
national Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, vol. 8, pp. 330–347.
Eljack, Fadwa; and Monzure-Khoda Kazi(2016). Process safety and abnormal situation management. Current
Opinion in Chemical Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 35–41.
Ellis, Clarence A.; Simon J. Gibbs; and Gail Rein (1991). Groupware: Some Issues and Experiences. Communi-
cations of the ACM, vol. 34, no.1, pp. 39–58.
Elstein, Arthur S.; Lee S. Shulman; and Sarah A. Sprafka (1978). Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of
Clinical Reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ericsson, K. Anders; and Herbert A. Simon (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Erlandsson, M.; and Anders Jansson (2007). Collegial verbalisation – a case study on a new method on infor-
mation acquisition. Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 26, no.6, pp. 535–543.
Fischer, Holger; Florian Rittmeier; Thim Strothmann; and Nina Schwenniger (2019). Partizipation von
Beschäftigten in der Gestaltung einer digitalisierten Arbeitswelt 4.0 mittels einer Canvas-Methode. In
C.K. Bosse and K. Zink (eds): Arbeit 4.0 im Mittelstand: Chancen und Herausforderungen des digitalen
Wandels für KMU. Berlin: Springer Berlin, pp. 177–195.
Fransoo, Jan C.; and Werner G. M. M. Rutten (1994). A Typology of Production Control Situations in Process
Industries. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 47–57.
Friedrich, Julia; Michael Becker; Frederik Kramer; Markus Wirth; and Martin Schneider (2020). Incentive
design and gamification for knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, vol. 106, pp. 341–352.
Gammack, John G. (1987). Different Techniques and Different Aspects on Declarative Knowledge. In A.L.
Kidd (ed.): Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems: A Practical Handbook. Boston: Springer US, pp.
137–163.
Gavrilova, Tatiana; and Tatiana Andreeva (2012). Knowledge elicitation techniques in a knowledge manage-
ment context. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 16, no.4, pp. 523–537.
Gomes, Carlos F.; Mahmoud M. Yasin,; and João V. Lisboa (2004). A literature review of manufacturing per-
formance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future
research. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 15, no.6, pp. 511–530.
Gosling, John Paul; and J. A. A. Andrade, (2018). Expert knowledge elicitation using item response theory.
Journal of Applied Statistics, vol. 45, no.6, pp. 2981–2998.
Gourlay, Stephen (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation : a critique of Nonaka’s theory. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, vol. 43, pp. 1415–1436.
Grandvallet, Christelle; Franck Pourroy; Guy Prudhomme; and Frédéric Vignat (2017). From elicitation to struc-
turing of additive manufacturing knowledge. In: ICED 17: Proceedings of the 21st International Confer-
ence on Engineering Design, Vancouver, Canada, 21–25 August 2017. The Design Society, pp. 141–150.
Grover, Mark D. (1983). A Pragmatic Knowledge Acquisition Methodology. In: Proceedings of the Eighth
International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1, Karlsruhe, West Germany. San Fran-
cisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers Inc., pp. 436–438.
Guerra-Zubiaga, David A. (2017). Tacit Knowledge Elicitation Techniques Applied to Complex Manufactur-
ing Processes. In: ASME 2017 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Tampa,
Florida, 3–9 November 2017. ASME, pp. 1–9.
Habtoor, Nasser (2015). The Relationship Between Human Factors and Organizational Performance in Yemeni
Industrial Companies. European Scientific Journal (ESJ), vol. 2, pp. 17–29.
Halkidi, Maria;Yannis Batistakis; and Michalis Vazirgiannis (2001). On clustering validation techniques. Jour-
nal of Intelligent Information Systems, vol. 17, pp. 107–145.
88 L. Hoerner et al.
Hannola, Lea; Francisco Lacueva-Pérez; Paolo Pretto; Alexander Richter; Marlene Schafler; and Melanie Stein-
hüser (2020). Assessing the impact of socio-technical interventions on shop floor work practices. Inter-
national Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 33, no.6, pp. 550–571.
Hansen, Morten T.; Nitin Nohria; and Thomas Tierney (1999). What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowl-
edge? Harvard Business Review, vol. 77, no.2, pp. 106–116.
Hartmann, Ernst. (2015). Arbeitsgestaltung für Industrie 4.0: Alte Wahrheiten, neue Herausforderungen. In A.
Botthof and E. Hartmann (eds): Zukunft der Arbeit in Industrie 4.0. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Vieweg,
pp. 9–20.
Hevner, Alan R.; Salvatore T. March; Jinsoo Park; and Sudha Ram (2004). Design science in information sys-
tems research. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, vol. 28, no.1, pp. 75–105.
Hislop, Donald; Rachelle Bosua; and Remko Helms (2018). Knowledge Management in Organizations. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hoffman, Robert R.; Beth Crandall; and Nigel Shadbolt (1998). Use of the Critical Decision Method to Elicit
Expert Knowledge: A Case Study in the Methodology of Cognitive Task Analysis. Human Factors, vol.
40, no.2, pp. 254–276.
Hold, Philipp; Selim Erol; Gehard Reisinger; and Wilfried Sihn (2017). Planning and Evaluation of Digital
Assistance Systems. Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 9, pp. 143–150.
Hörner, Lorenz; Markus Schamberger; and Freimut Bodendorf (2020). Externalisierung von prozess-spezifi-
schem Mitarbeiterwissen im Produktionsumfeld. Zeitschrift Für Wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb (ZWF),
vol. 115, no. 6., pp. 413–417.
ISO/IEC 25063 (2014). Systems and software engineering — Systems and software product Quality Require-
ments and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Common Industry Format (CIF) for usability: Context of use
description.
ISO 9241–110 (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and con-
cepts. International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 9241–110 (2006). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 110: Dialogue principles. International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO 9241–210 (2010). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for inter-
active systems. International Organization for Standardization.
Jasperneite, Juergen; and Oliver Niggemann (2012). Intelligente Assistenzsysteme zur Beherrschung der
Systemkomplexität in der Automation. In: ATP Edition - Automatisierungstechnische Praxis 9/2012.
München: Oldenourg Verlag, pp. 36–44.
Johansen, Robert (1988). GroupWare: Computer Support for Business Teams. New York: The Free Press.
John, Bonnie E.; and Hilary Packer (1995). Learning and Using the Cognitive Walkthrough Method: A Case
Study Approach. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Denver, Colorado, May 1995. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., pp. 429–436.
Johnson, Leslie; and Nancy E. Johnson (1987). Knowledge Elicitation Involving Teachback Interviewing. In
A.L. Kidd (ed): Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems: A Practical Handbook. Boston: Springer US,
pp. 91–108.
Johnson, Paul E.; Imran Zualkernan; and Sharon Garber (1987). Specification of expertise. International Jour-
nal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 26, no.2, pp. 161–181.
Johnson, R. Burke; and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm
Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, vol.33, no.7, pp. 14-26.
Johnson, Teegan L.; Sarah R. Fletcher; W. Baker; and Rebecca L. Charles (2019). How and why we need to
capture tacit knowledge in manufacturing: Case studies of visual inspection. Applied Ergonomics, vol.
74, pp. 1–9.
Jokela, Timo; Netta Iivari; Juha Matero; and Minna Karukka (2003). The Standard of User-Centered Design
and the Standard Definition of Usability: Analyzing ISO 13407 against ISO 9241–11. In: Proceedings of
the Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 2003.
New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 53–60.
Kagermann, Henning; Wolfgang Wahlster; Johannes Helbig; and Ariane Hellinger (2013). Umsetzungsempfe-
hlungen für das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0. Frankfurt: acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Technikwis-
senschaften (e.V.).
Kanungo, Tapas; David M. Mount; Nathan S. Netanyahu; Christine D. Piatko; Ruth Silverman; and Angela Y.
Wu (2002). An efficient k-means clustering algorithms: Analysis and implementation. IEEE Transactions
on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 24, no.7, pp. 881–892.
Keller, Thimo; Christian Bayer; Phillip Bausch; and Joachim Metternich (2019). Benefit evaluation of digital
assistance systems for assembly workstations. Procedia CIRP, vol. 81, pp. 441–446.
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 89
Kendal, Simon; and Malcolm Creen (2007). An Introduction to Knowledge Engineering. London: Springer
London.
Kern, Werner; Hans-Horst Schröder; and Jürgen Weber (1996). Handwörterbuch der Produktionswirtschaft.
Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
Khan, Ateeq; and Klaus Turowski (2016). A Survey of Current Challenges in Manufacturing Industry and
Preparation for Industry 4.0. In A. Abraham; S. Kovalev; V. Tarassov; and V. Snášel (eds): IITI’16:
Proceedings of the First International Scientific Conference ‘Intelligent Information Technologies for
Industry’. Cham: Springer, pp. 15–26.
Kleber, Eduard (1992). Diagnostik in pädagogischen Handlungsfeldern. Einführung in die Bewertung,
Beurteilung, Diagnose und Evaluation. Weinheim: Juventa-Verlag.
König, Christina; Thomas Hofmann; and Ralph Bruder (2012). Application of the user-centred design pro-
cess according ISO 9241-210 in air traffic control. Work, vol. 41, pp. 167–174.
LaFrance, Marianne (1987). The Knowledge Acquisition Grid: a method for training knowledge engineers.
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 26, no.2, pp. 245–255.
Lee, Wei‐Meng (2019). Python Machine Learning. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lau, Nathana; Greg A. Jamieson; and Gyrd Skraaning (2012). Situation awareness in process control: A
fresh look. In: NPIC & HMIT 2012: 8th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumen-
tation, Control, and Human-Machine Interface Technologies, San Diego, USA, 22-26 July 2012.
LaGrange Park: American Nuclear Society (ANS), pp. 1511 – 1523.
Maguire, Martin (2013). Using Human Factors Standards to Support User Experience and Agile Design. In
C. Stephanidis (ed): Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design Methods, Tools, and
Interaction Techniques for eInclusion. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 185–194.
Marca, David; and Geoffrey Bock (1992). Groupware : software for computer-supported cooperative work.
Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Mark, Benedikt G.; Erwin Rauch; and Dominik T. Matt (2021). Worker assistance systems in manufactur-
ing: A review of the state of the art and future directions. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 59,
pp. 228 – 250.
Mayring, Philipp (2012). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Ein Beispiel für Mixed Methods. In M. Gläser-Zikuda;
T. Seidel; C. Rohlfs; A. Gröschner; and S. Ziegelbauer (eds): Mixed Methods in der empirischen Bil-
dungsforschung. Münster: Waxmann, pp. 27–36.
Mersch, Henning; Daniel Behnen; Dominik Schmitz; Ulrich Epple; and Matthias Jarke (2011). Gemeinsam-
keiten und Unterschiede der Prozess- und Fertigungstechnik. At - Automatisierungstechnik, vol. 59,
no. 1, pp. 7–17.
Milton, Nick (2012). Acquiring Knowledge from Subject Matter Experts. In J. Kantola and W. Karwowski
(eds): Knowledge Service Engineering Handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 254 – 278.
Milton, Nicholas R. (2003). Personal knowledge techniques. Ph.D. thesis. University of Nottingham, United
Kingdom.
Minor, Mirjam (2006). Erfahrungsmanagement mit fallbasierten Assistenzsystemen. Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin, Germany: Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät II.
Monk, Andrew; Jeanne Haber; and Peter Wright (1993). Improving Your Human-Computer Interface: A
Practical Technique. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Morlock, Friedrich; Thom Wienbruch; Stefan Leineweber; Dieter Kreimeier; and Bernd Kuhlenkötter
(2016). Industrie 4.0-transformation of manufacturing companies. Zeitschrift Für Wirtschaftlichen
Fabrikbetrieb (ZWF), vol. 111, no.5, pp. 306–309.
Müller, Romy; and Lukas Oehm (2019). Process industries versus discrete processing: how system charac-
teristics affect operator tasks. Cognition, Technology & Work, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 337–356.
Nayak, Disha; Kumar Vijaya; Sreenivasulu Naidu; and Vanar Shankar (2013). Evaluation of OEE in a con-
tinuous process industry on an insulation line in a cable manufacturing. International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (IJIRSET), vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 1629–1634.
Nelles, Jochen; Sinem Kuz; Alexander Mertens; and Christopher Schlick (2016). Human-centered design of
assistance systems for production planning and control. The role of the human in Industry 4.0. 2016
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), pp. 2099–2104.
Nielsen, Jakob, Rolf Molich (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. CHI ’90: Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 249–256
Neuhaus, Ralf (2007). Produktionssysteme : Entstehung - Aufbau – Implementierung. Bergisch Gladbach:
Heider.
Neumann, Klaus (1996). Produktions- und Operations-Management. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg
90 L. Hoerner et al.
Niehaus, Jonathan (2017). Mobile Assistenzsysteme für Industrie 4.0 - Gestaltungsoptionen zwischen Autono-
mie und Kontrolle. Düsseldorf: FGW – Forschungsinstitut für gesellschaftliche Weiterentwicklung (e.V.).
Nonaka, Ikujiro (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, vol.
5, no.1, pp. 14–37.
Nonaka, Ikujiro; and Hirotaka Takeucchi (1995). The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Compa-
nies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Novak, Joseph; and Alberto Cañas (2006). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them.
Florida: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
O’Hagan, Anthony (2019). Expert Knowledge Elicitation: Subjective but Scientific. The American Statistician,
vol. 73, pp. 69–81.
Okafor, Eric; and Charles Osuagwu (2006). The Underlying Issues in Knowledge Elicitation. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, vol. 1, pp. 95–107.
Patrick, John; Anna Gregov; Polly Halliday; Jim Handley; and Sinéad O’Reilly (1999). Analysing operators’
diagnostic reasoning during multiple events. Ergonomics, vol. 42, no. 3 pp. 493–515.
Pawlowsky, Peter (2019). Wissensmanagement. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.
Peffers, Ken; Tuure Tuunanen; Marcus A. Rothenberger; and Samir Chatterjee (2007). A design science
research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems,
vol. 24, no.3, pp. 45–77.
Perrow, Charles (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.
Quandt, Moritz; Hendrik Stern; Supara Grudpan; Thies Beinke; Michael Freitag; and Rainer Malaka (2020).
Evaluation of Human-Computer-Interaction Design in Production and Logistics by Using Experimental
Investigations. In M. Freitag; H.-D. Haasis; H. Kotzab; and J. Pannek (eds): Dynamics in Logistics. Pro-
ceedings of the 7th International Conference on Dynamics in Logistics. Cham: Springer, pp. 554–566.
Rama, Jiten; and Judith Bishop (2006). A Survey and Comparison of CSCW Groupware Applications. In:
Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Sci-
entists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries, Somerset West, South
Africa, October 2006. South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, pp.
198–205.
Riedel, Ralph; Franziska Schmalfuss; Michael Bojko; and Sebastian Mach (2017). Flexible Automatisierung in
Abhängigkeit von Mitarbeiterkompetenzen und-beanspruchung. In: Herbstkonferenz der Gesellschaft für
Arbeitswissenschaft e.V., Chemnitz, Germany, 28–29 November. Dortmund: Gesellschaft Für Arbeitswis-
senschaft (e.V.).
Roberts, Joanne (2000) From Know-how to Show-how? Questioning the Role of Information and Communica-
tion Technologies in Knowledge Transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 12(4) 429–443
Romero, David; Peter Bernus; Ovidiu Noran; Johan Stahre; and Åsa Fast-Berglund (2016). The Operator 4.0:
Human Cyber-Physical Systems & Adaptive Automation Towards Human-Automation Symbiosis Work
Systems. In I. Nääs; O. Vendrametto; J.M. Reis; R.F. Gonçalves; M.T. Silva; G. von Cieminski; and D.
Kiritsis: APMS 2016: Advances in Production Management Systems. Initiatives for a Sustainable World,
Iguassu Falls, Brazil, 3 – 7 September 2016. Cham: Springer, pp. 677–686.
Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling,
vol. 9, no.3, pp. 161–176.
Sadabadi, Ali T. (2013). Rapid prototyping for software projects with user interfaces. Scientific Bulletin of Uni-
versity of PITESTI, Electronics and Computer Science Series, vol. 2, pp. 85–90.
Saez, Miguel; Francisco Maturana; Kira Barton; and Dawn Tilbury (2017). Anomaly detection and productivity
analysis for cyber-physical systems in manufacturing. In: CASE: 2017 13th IEEE Conference on Automa-
tion Science and Engineering, Xi’an, China, 20–23 August 2017. IEEE, pp. 23–29.
Schenk, Michael; Tina Haase; Alinde Keller; and Dirk Berndt (2016). Herausforderungen der Mensch-Tech-
nik-Interaktion für die Gestaltung zukünftiger Arbeitssysteme. In C.M. Schlick (ed): Megatrend Digi-
talisierung - Potenziale der Arbeits- und Betriebsorganisation. Berlin: GITO mbH Verlag, pp. 131-139.
Schild, Stefanie; Brita Sedlmayr; Ann-Kathrin Schumacher; Martin Sedlmayr; Hans-Ulrich Prokosch; Michael
St Pierre; and German Cognitive Aid Working Group (2019). A Digital Cognitive Aid for Anesthesia to
Support Intraoperative Crisis Management: Results of the User-Centered Design Process. JMIR MHealth
and UHealth, vol. 7, no.4, pp. e13226.
Schmidt, Kjeld (2013). Constructing CSCW: The first quarter century. Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(CSCW), vol. 22, pp. 345–372.
Schmidt, Kjeld; and Liam Bannon (1992). Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting Articulation Work. Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 1, pp. 7–40.
Schmidt, Kjeld (2012). The Trouble with ‘Tacit Knowledge’. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),
vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 163–225.
Using Tacit Expert Knowledge to Support Shop‑floor Operators… 91
Schult, Andre; Erik Beck; and Jens-Peter Majschak (2015). Steigerung der Effizienz von Verarbeitungs- und
Verpackungsanlagen durch Wirkungsgradanalysen. Pharma + Food, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 66 – 68.
Shadbolt, Nigel (2005). Eliciting Expertise. In J.R. Wilson; and E.N. Corlett, (eds): Evaluation of human work.
Boca Ratton: Taylor & Francis, pp.185 – 218.
Shadbolt, Nigel; and Mike Burton (1990). Knowledge elicitation. In J. R. Wilson and E.N. Corlett (eds): Evalu-
ation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis, pp. 321–345.
Shadbolt, Nigel; and Paul R. Smart (2015). Knowledge Elicitation Methods, Tools and Techniques. In J.R. Wil-
son; and S. Sharples (eds): Evaluation of Human Work. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 163–200.
Shaw, Mildred L. G.; and Brian R. Gaines (1987). An Interactive Knowledge-Elicitation Technique Using Per-
sonal Construct Technology. In A.L. Kidd (ed.): Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems: A Practical
Handbook. Boston: Springer US, pp. 109–136.
Smith, Cecil L. (2014). Control of Batch Processes. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, Cecil L. (2008). Practical Process Control: Tuning and Troubleshooting. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Spanner-Ulmer, Birgit (2011). Humanzentriertes Industrial Engineering im Wirkungsfeld zwischen Stabilität
und Flexibilität. In R. Hensel-Unger; and A. Höhnel (eds): Wissensarbeit : zwischen strengen Prozessen
und kreativem Spielraum. Berlin: GITO, pp. 345–366.
Terhechte, Johannes Philipp; Anna-Lena Berscheid; and Ilona Horwath (2019). Development of a cyber-phys-
ical simulation assistance system for partially automated optimization of the extrusion process. In: 36
th Danubia-Adria Symposium on Advances in Experimental Mechanics, Plzeň, Czech Republic, 24-27
September. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia, pp. 19–20.
Thalmann, Stefan; Angela Fessl; and Viktoria Pammer (2020). How Large Manufacturing Firms Understand
the Impact of Digitization: A Learning Perspective. In: HICSS: Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii Inter-
national Conference on System Sciences, Manoa, United States, 7–10 January. Scholar Space, pp.
4806–4815.
Thomas, Frank; Christoph Kilger; Ralf Hermann; and Ralf Baginski (2007). Informationstechnologie als
Treiber der Intralogistik. In D. Arnold (ed.): Intralogistik. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 193–237.
Ulber, Martin; and Frauke Remmers (2019). Die Analyse der Arbeitsfähigkeit in der digitalisierten Produktion
-- Anforderungen an ein neues Instrumentarium. In J. von Garrel (ed): Digitalisierung der Produktion-
sarbeit: Arbeitsfähig sein und bleiben. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, pp. 113–137.
Urbas, Leon (2012). Process Control Systems Engineering. Munich: Oldenbourg Industrieverlag.
Venkatasubramanian, Venkat; Raghunathan Rengaswamy; Kewen Yin; and Surya N. Kavuri (2003). A review
of process fault detection and diagnosis: Part I: Quantitative model-based methods. Computers & Chemi-
cal Engineering, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 293–311.
Voigt, Kai-Ingo (2008). Industrielles Management: Industriebetriebslehre aus prozessorientierter Sicht. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Volland, Stefanie (2012). Produktionslosgrößen und logistische Kennlinien in der Hybridfertigung Zielgrößen
am Beispiel einer Hybridfertigung. Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria: Lehrstuhl für Industrielogistik.
Wang, Chuang; and Pingyu Jiang (2017). Deep neural networks based order completion time prediction by
using real-time job shop RFID data. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 30, pp. 1303–1318.
Webert, Heiko; Tamara Döß; Lukas Kaupp; Stephan Simons (2022). Fault Handling in Industry 4.0: Definition,
Process and Applications. Sensors, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1–19.
Weiss, Sholom M.; and Casimir A. Kulikowski (1984). A Practical Guide to Designing Expert Systems.
Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wood, Larry E.; and John M. Ford (1993). Structuring interviews with experts during knowledge elicitation.
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 8, no.1, pp. 71–90.
Zhang, Lili; Zhengfeng Li; Yang, Yang; and Menghan Cui (2020). Human error unplanned downtime inferring
and job-operator matching based on inverse optimal value method. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
vol. 149, pp. 106840.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.