Technological Forecasting & Social Change 132 (2018) 40–45

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Industry 4.0: A Korea perspective T

Tae Kyung Sung

Department of MIS, Kyonggi University, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The objectives of this paper are (1) to have a detailed, practical discussion of Industry 4.0, and (2) to suggest
Industry 4.0 policy implications to transition toward Industry 4.0 in Korea. Companies should consider Industry 4.0 very
Fourth industrial revolution seriously as they develop their future initiatives since traditional manufacturing business models do not fit with
Policy implications the emerging technologies of Industry 4.0. Some issues should be addressed with care: IT security, reliability and
stability needed for critical machine-to-machine communication; a need to maintain the integrity of production
processes, avoid IT snags, and protect industrial knowhow; and the lack of adequate skill-sets, general reluctance
to change by stakeholders, and loss of many jobs to automatic processes and IT-controlled processes. To suc-
cessfully transform Korean industry toward Industry 4.0, it is necessary to (1) refine and elaborate the strategies
enacted by the central government to build economic and social systems that can flexibly respond to changes, (2)
establish some kind of operational system to maximize the effectiveness of initiatives and policies, (3) develop
concrete and workable action plans to transition toward economic and social systems that can accommodate
innovative changes, and (4) establish infrastructure to lead all initiatives.

1. Introduction
‘Industry 4.0’ was first coined at the Hannover Fair in 2011, and the
term has drawn great attention from academics, practitioners, govern-
mental officials, and politicians all over the world. Kagermann et al.
(2013) considers Industry 4.0 as the current trend toward automation
and data exchange in manufacturing technologies. It includes cyber-
physical systems, the Internet of Things, and cloud computing. Industry
4.0 creates what has been referred to as a “smart factory”. Within
modular, structured smart factories, cyber-physical systems monitor
physical processes, create a virtual copy of the physical world, and
make decentralized decisions. The Internet of Things refers to cyber-
physical systems that communicate and cooperate with each other and
with humans in real time via internet services, through which both
internal and cross-organizational services are offered and used by
participants throughout the value chain (Hermann et al., 2016).
In many countries, including Korea, the fourth industrial revolution
is a more widely used term than Industry 4.0 because the term “the
fourth industrial revolution” is more appealing and familiar than
Industry 4.0. Schwab (2016) argues that we are at the beginning of the
fourth industrial revolution that builds on the digital revolution with
much more ubiquitous and mobile internet, smaller and more powerful
sensors that become cheaper and affordable, and artificial intelligence
and machine learning.
These concepts regarding the fourth industrial revolution and
Industry 4.0 are similar, so can we use the two terms interchangeably?
In this research, Industry 4.0 will be used as the representative term to
explore whether there are differences in the two terms. The next section
will describe the origin, concept, design, characteristics, and challenges
of Industry 4.0, and then the effects and impact of Industry 4.0 will
follow. The final section will discuss policy implications and related
issues.
2. Industry 4.0
2.1. Definition and concept
The term “Industry 4.0” originated from a project initiated by high-
tech strategy of the German government to promote the computeriza-
tion of manufacturing. Industry 4.0 is considered as the next phase in
the digitization of the manufacturing sector, and it is driven by four
disruptions: the astonishing rise in data, computational power, and
connectivity, especially new low-power wide-area networks; the
emergence of analytics and business-intelligence capabilities; new
forms of human-machine interaction such as touch interfaces and
augmented-reality systems; and improvements in transferring digital
instructions to the physical world, such as with advanced robotics and
3-D printing (Lee et al., 2013). These four trends are not the reason for
the “4.0,” however. Rather, this is the fourth major upheaval in modern
manufacturing, following the lean revolution of the 1970s, the out-
sourcing phenomenon of the 1990s, and the automation that took off in
the 2000s (Baur and Wee, 2015).

E-mail address: tksung@kyonggi.ac.kr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.005
Received 10 October 2017; Received in revised form 1 November 2017; Accepted 7 November 2017
Available online 13 November 2017
0040-1625/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T.K. Sung
Most of the digital technologies mentioned above have been de-
veloped for years, and while some technologies are not yet ready for use
at scale, many are now at a point where availability, reliability, and cost
are attractive enough for some industrial applications. According to a
survey by McKinsey, companies are not consistently aware of these
emerging technologies. McKinsey surveyed 300 manufacturing leaders
in January 2015, and only 48% of manufacturers consider themselves
ready for Industry 4.0. Seventy-eight percent of suppliers answered that
they are prepared (Baur and Wee, 2015).
According to Kagermann et al. (2013), Industry 4.0 takes manu-
facturing automation to a new level by introducing customized and
flexible mass production technologies. This means that machines will
operate independently or will coordinate with humans to produce
customer-oriented manufacturing that constantly works to maintain
itself. Rather, the machine becomes an independent entity that can
collect data, analyze it, and give advice upon it. This becomes possible
by introducing self-optimization, self-cognition, and self-customization
into industry, and manufacturers will be able to communicate with
computers rather than just operate machines.
A smart factory, a key feature of Industry 4.0, adopts a so-called
calm-system that deals with both the physical world and the virtual
world. Such systems are referred to as “background systems” that op-
erate behind the scenes. A calm system is aware of the surrounding
environment and the objects around it (Hermann et al., 2016).
2.2. Industry 4.0 vs. the fourth industrial revolution
Progress in digital technologies in combination with other key en-
abling technologies is changing the way we design, produce, commer-
cialize and generate value from products and related services. Advances
in technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), 5G, cloud com-
puting, data analytics and robotics are transforming products, processes
41
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 132 (2018) 40–45
Fig. 1. Digital compass.
Source: Baur and Wee (2015).
and business models in all sectors ultimately creating new industrial
patterns as global value chains shift (EC, 2016).
In general, Industry 4.0 has been compared to and used inter-
changeably with the fourth industrial revolution. However, the latter
refers to a systemic transformation that includes an impact on civil
society, governance structures, and human identity in addition to solely
economic and manufacturing ramifications. The first industrial re-
volution achieved the mechanization of production using water and
steam power; the second industrial revolution then introduced mass
production with the help of electric power, followed by the digital re-
volution to use electronics and IT to further automate production
(Schwab, 2016). The term “fourth industrial revolution” has been ap-
plied to significant technological developments over the years, and its
meaning is up for academic debate. Industry 4.0, on the other hand,
specifically focuses on manufacturing in the current context, and it is
thus separate from the fourth industrial revolution in terms of scope
(Hermann et al., 2016).
2.3. Value drivers
To fully exploit the potential of Industry 4.0 and deliver value to
companies, manufacturers should consider the importance and role of
information. Companies can gather more useful information and make
better use of it (Baur and Wee, 2015). For example, an oil-exploration
company collected over 30,000 pieces of data from each of its drilling
rigs – yet most of data was lost due to problems of data transmission,
storage, and architecture. The small portion of data the company cap-
tured was incredibly useful to create efficient internal operations.
In order to provide useful insight for factory management and gain
correct content, data has to be processed using advanced tools (analy-
tics and algorithms) that can generate meaningful information.
Considering the presence of visible and invisible issues in an industrial
T.K. Sung
factory, information generation algorithms have to be capable of de-
tecting and addressing invisible issues, including machine degradation,
component wear, etc., in the factory floor (Lee et al., 2013, 2014).
However, many executives rightly wonder where and how to begin.
Which data would be most beneficial and which data problems cause
trouble? Which technologies would deliver the biggest return on in-
vestment for a company and which technologies should the company
avoid? To rightly choose appropriately, manufacturing companies may
use a “digital compass” (Fig. 1). The compass consists of eight basic
value drivers and 26 practical Industry 4.0 levers. Cross-functional
discussions will then help companies find the technology levers that are
best suited to solve their particular problems (Baur and Wee, 2015).
2.4. Design principles
Hermann et al. (2016) suggest four design principles for Industry
4.0 based on a four-step research phase: first, identify relevant litera-
ture; second, conduct a quantitative text analysis; third, publish a
qualitative literature review; and, fourth, organize a nominal group
workshop (Fig. 2).
• Connections: The ability of machines, devices, sensors, and people
to connect and communicate with each other via the Internet of
Things (IoT) or the Internet of People (IoP). This principle requires
collaboration, security, and standards.
• Information transparency: The ability of information systems to
create a virtual copy of the physical world by enriching digital plant
models with sensor data. This includes data analysis and provision
of information.
• Technical assistance: Visual and physical assistance. The ability of
assistance systems to support humans by aggregating and visua-
lizing information comprehensibly to make informed decisions and
solve urgent problems on short notice and the ability of cyber
physical systems to physically support humans by conducting a
range of tasks that are unpleasant, too exhausting, or unsafe for their
human co-workers.
• Decentralized decisions: The ability of cyber physical systems to
make decisions on their own and to perform their tasks as autono-
mously as possible. Only in the case of exceptions, interference, or
conflicting goals, are tasks delegated to a higher level.
42
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 132 (2018) 40–45
Fig. 2. Design principles.
Source: Hermann et al. (2016).
3. Effects and challenges
3.1. Effects
The basic principle of Industry 4.0 is that by connecting machines,
work flows and systems, businesses implement intelligent networks
along the entire value chain to control one another autonomously
(Liffler and Tschiesner, 2013). The typical example of Industry 4.0 is a
machine that can predict failure and trigger maintenance processes
autonomously or self-organized logistics that react to unexpected or
unusual changes in operation. This example would show the rationa-
lization of the driving force behind the Internet of Things. But it also
means that the complexity of internal operation and external supplier
networks will grow enormously. So far, networks and processes have
been limited to one factory alone. However, in the era of Industry 4.0,
these boundaries of individual factories will most likely no longer exist.
Instead, boundaries will collapse to interconnect a number of factories
and cover larger geographical regions.
There are differences between a typical traditional factory and an
Industry 4.0 factory. According to Tec.News (2016), the key to success
in modern industry is to provide high-end quality services or product at
the lowest cost, and industrial factories are trying to improve perfor-
mance as much as possible to increase their profits and their reputation.
In this way, various data sources can provide worthwhile information
regarding different aspects of the factory. In this stage, data utilization
to understand the current operating conditions and detect faults and
failures is an important topic for research. For example, during pro-
duction, various commercial tools are available to provide the Overall
Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) information to factory management in
order to highlight the root causes of problems and the possible faults in
a system.
In contrast, in an Industry 4.0 factory, in addition to monitoring the
condition and providing a fault diagnosis, components and systems are
able to gain self-awareness and self-predictiveness, which will provide
management with more insight as to the status of the factory.
Furthermore, peer-to-peer comparison and blending of timely in-
formation from various components provides a precise prediction of the
components and alerts factory management to trigger required main-
tenance at the best possible time to reach just-in time maintenance and
gain near zero downtime (Tec.News, 2016).
Strategists advise that companies should consider Industry 4.0 very
seriously to plan the company's future initiatives and maximize po-
tential. As Industry 4.0 progresses, business model for traditional
T.K. Sung Technological Forecasting & Social Change 132 (2018) 40–45

manufacturing is changing, and new models are emerging. As such,
incumbents must be quick to recognize and react to these new com-
petitive challenges. Specifically, executives must consider the following
options – and watch for others that may be deploying them. Eighty-four
percent of the manufacturing suppliers we surveyed expect new com-
petitors to enter the market soon (Baur and Wee, 2015).
• “Platforms,” in which products, services, and information can be
exchanged via predefined streams. Consider open-source software
applied to the manufacturing context.
• Pay-by-use and subscription-based services.
• Businesses that license intellectual property. Today, many manu-
facturing companies have deep expertise in their products and
processes, but lack the expertise to generate value from their data.
• Businesses that monetize data.
3.2. Challenges
It is very important to recognize and evaluate the economic effects
of Industry 4.0, the digitalization of the production processes. These
developments involve considerable challenges at the enterprise and at
the political level. Challenges which have been identified include
(Wolter et al., 2015)
• IT security issues
• Reliability and stability needed for critical machine-to-machine
communication (M2M), including very short and stable latency
• Need to maintain the integrity of production processes
• Need to avoid any IT snags, as those would cause expensive pro-
duction outages
• Need to protect industrial knowhow (contained also in the control
files for industrial automation gear)
• Lack of adequate skill-sets to expedite the march toward the fourth
industrial revolution
• Threat of redundancy of the corporate IT department
• General reluctance to change by stakeholders
• Loss of many jobs to automatic processes and IT-controlled pro-
cesses, especially for lower educated parts of society
4. Discussions and policy implications for Korea
In Korea, the fourth industrial revolution is a more widely accepted
term than Industry 4.0 because the Korean government prefers to use
the fourth industrial revolution to draw more attention from industry
leaders and the public. News media has also adopted the fourth in-
dustrial revolution as a representative term for new emerging industrial
changes. However, some academics are very much concerned with this
trend since the fourth industrial revolution has not been well defined,
characterized, and elaborated. Also most industry leaders wonder
whether an actual paradigm shift to the fourth industrial revolution has
been taken place yet (KIET, 2017).
Schwab (2016) himself admits that the world lacks a consistent,
positive and common narrative that guides the opportunities and
challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. This lack in a narrative
may hurt the fundamental changes for the future, and Schwab (2016)
points out that the required levels of leadership and understanding of
changes across all sectors are low compared to the need to rethink our
economic, social, and political systems to respond to the fourth in-
dustrial revolution. These two points should be taken into consideration
for Korea to successfully transform toward an Industry 4.0 environment
or the fourth industrial revolution. Table 1 shows the rankings of na-
tions regarding competitiveness for the fourth industrial revolution
(Trade Brief, 2017). Korea is ranked at 21st, and this ranking should be
considered to be quite low when compared to the very high levels of IT
industries of Korea.
EU countries that lead in Industry 4.0 or the fourth industrial re-
volution are planning mid- or long-term roadmaps from a country-wide
perspective and are developing innovative infrastructure and networks
to fully implement these roadmaps. The main participants in these
roadmaps are research institutes, universities, industries, local gov-
ernments, and central government, and they operate autonomously
based on tight coordination mechanisms (Trade Brief, 2017). This ex-
ample of the EU would be a good guideline for the Korean government,
industries, universities, and research institutes to plan effective and
implementable Industry 4.0 initiatives.
Table 2 summarizes all initiatives the Korean government plans to
implement. As the table shows, some initiatives are not clearly elabo-
rated and some need a very high level of coordination among

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of implementing Industry 4.0 is

Table 1
the IT security risk. Industry 4.0 will require on-line integration among
Global competitiveness rankings for the fourth industrial revolution.
several entities, and this online integration will give room to security Source: UBS (2016), WEF (2017), IMD (2017).
breaches and data leaks. Cyber theft would be another dangerous
threat. In this case, the problem is not individual, and this will cost Rank Nation UBS WEF IMD Average
manufacturers substantially and might even hurt their reputation.
1 Singapore 2 1 1 1.3
Therefore, security is a crucial issue that should be dealt with seriously. 2 Finland 4 2 4 3.3
The transformation to Industry 4.0 will require large investments in 3 U.S.A. 5 5 3 4.3
new technology, and the decision for such transformations will have to 4 Netherland 3 6 6 5.0
be taken at the CEO level. Even then, the risks must be calculated and 5 Switzerland 1 7 8 5.3
Sweden 11 3 2 5.3
taken seriously. 7 Norway 8 4 10 7.3
While it is still early to speculate on employment issues with the 8 United Kingdom 7 8 11 8.3
advent of Industry 4.0, it is safe to accept that workers will need to Denmark 9 11 5 8.3
acquire different or an all-new set of skills. This may help employment 10 Hong Kong 7 12 7 8.7
11 Canada 15 14 9 12.7
rates go up, but it will also alienate a big sector of workers. The sector
12 New Zealand 10 17 14 13.7
of workers whose work is perhaps repetitive and routine will face a stiff 13 Germany 13 15 17 15.0
challenge to keep their jobs. New and quite different educational sys- 14 Taiwan 16 19 12 15.7
tems must be introduced, but this still does not solve the problem for 15 Japan 12 10 27 16.3
older workers. This is an issue that might take quite a long time to solve. 16 Australia 17 18 15 16.7
17 Austria 18 20 16 18.0
Privacy is not only the customer's concern, but also the manufac- 18 Israel 21 21 13 18.3
turer's. In such an interconnected Industry 4.0 network, manufacturers 19 Korea 25 13 19 19.0
need to collect and analyze a huge quantity of data. To the customers, 20 Ireland 14 25 21 20.0
this might look like a threat to their privacy. Narrowing the gap be- 21 Belgium 19 23 22 21.3
22 France 20 24 25 23.0
tween the consumer and the manufacturer will be a huge challenge for
23 Malaysia 22 31 24 25.7
both parties. 24 Portugal 23 30 33 28.7

43
T.K. Sung Technological Forecasting & Social Change 132 (2018) 40–45

Table 2
Korean Government's initiatives toward the fourth industrial revolution.

Ministry Initiatives

Science & ICT - Providing support for core technology development to seize initiatives
- Formulating strategy and policies
Culture, Sports & Tourism - Nurturing contents industry and implementing stable culture supply systems
Trade, Industry & Energy - Establishing industry infrastructure including smart factory
Employment & Labor - Preparing law and policy regarding employment
- Fostering human resources
Strategy & Finance - Financial planning and coordinating all related entities for effective and proactive response
Interior & Safety - Transforming to a more intelligent government system
Oceans & Fisheries - Upgrading current industries and creating new industries through technology development and application
Education - Strengthening college education and fostering human resources for creativity and convergence
Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs - Upgrading agriculture industries through big data analysis, intelligent tools, and technology
Personnel Management - Building a more effective personnel management system
Land, Infrastructure & Transportation - Augmenting efficient and intelligent transportation system for the future
Government Legislation - Preparing and arranging necessary laws
Financial Services Commission - Providing more financial resources for core future industries

government ministries and industries. The Korean government is aware
of the importance of Industry 4.0, or the fourth industrial revolution,
but some initiatives are more like slogan-driven and do not have de-
tailed or workable steps for implementation.
To successfully transform Korean industries to the next level of
Industry 4.0 (or the fourth industrial revolution as the government
wants to name it), the following policy implications are suggested
(KIET, 2017).
(1) The strategies of the central government for the fourth industrial
revolution or Industry 4.0 should be refined and elaborated to build
economic and social systems that can respond to changes in a
flexible manner. An in-depth analysis of the governments' in-
itiatives shows that people recognize unfavorable economic and
social conditions as follows:
♦ Slow economic recovery due to sluggish domestic demand
♦ Risk of household debt risk
♦ Uncertain interest rate and trade protection
♦ Diversification of social structure due to low birthrate, income in-
stability, work-family imbalance
(2) It is advised that concrete and workable action plans are needed to
transit toward economic and social systems that can accommodate
innovative changes in a turbulent global economic environment
and unbalanced social structure.
(3) Through specific and detailed policies that encompass local gov-
ernments, industries, research institutes, universities as well as so-
cial culture and the economy, it is necessary to establish the in-
frastructure to lead all initiatives
♦ To enhance the competitiveness of intelligent Information and
Communication technology as a key driver, prioritize investment
support and create an ecosystem that can facilitate technology
convergence.
♦ To respond to new types of labor, employment, social safety net,
formulate plans to improve the system through continuous discus-
sion on social changes such as ethics.
♦ To minimize polarization due to job changes and income disparity,
economic policy should be prepared to deal with.
(4) It is needed to establish some kind of operating system to maximize
the effectiveness of initiatives and policies
♦ To establish a collaborative platform to ensure the effectiveness of
policies and to coordinate these policies to promote synergy effects
(Recently, The National Strategy Committee of the 4th Industrial
Revolution was established as a control tower).
♦ To continuously promote synergy and diffusion effects among the
policies, it is advised to establish a system for performance man-
agement and monitoring of all initiatives
5. Summary and conclusions
The purposes of this paper are (1) to explore Industry 4.0 into a
more detailed and practical discussions, and (2) suggest policy im-
plications to transit to Industry 4.0 in Korea. Industry 4.0 is considered
as the next phase in the digitization of the manufacturing sector, driven
by four disruptions: the astonishing rise in data volumes, computational
power, and connectivity, especially new low-power wide-area net-
works; the emergence of analytics and business-intelligence cap-
abilities; new forms of human-machine interaction such as touch in-
terfaces and augmented-reality systems; and improvements in
transferring digital instructions to the physical world, such as advanced
robotics and 3-D printing (Lee et al., 2013).
The fourth industrial revolution is more widely accepted as a stan-
dard term than Industry 4.0 in many countries, especially in Korea,
because the term “fourth Industrial revolution” is more appealing and
familiar. Schwab (2016) argues that we are at the beginning of the
fourth industrial revolution, which builds on the digital revolution with
much more ubiquitous and mobile internet, smaller and more powerful
sensors that become cheaper and affordable, and artificial intelligence
and machine learning.
Companies are advised to consider Industry 4.0 very seriously as
they develop their future initiatives since business models for tradi-
tional manufacturing would not fit with emerging technologies in the
new Industry 4.0 environment. Also, there are some issues that should
be dealt with care, including: IT security, reliability and stability
needed for critical machine-to-machine communication (M2M), in-
cluding very short and stable latency times; a need to maintain the
integrity of production processes, avoid any IT snags, as those would
cause expensive production outages, and protect industrial knowhow;
lack of adequate skill-sets to expedite the march toward fourth in-
dustrial revolution, the threat of redundancy of corporate IT depart-
ments, general reluctance to change by stakeholders, and the loss of
many jobs to automatic processes and IT-controlled processes, espe-
cially for the parts of society with lower educational levels.
To successfully transform Korean industries to the next level of
Industry 4.0, the following policy implications are suggested. (1) The
strategies of the central government for the fourth industrial revolution
or Industry 4.0 should be refined and elaborated to build economic and
social systems that can flexibly respond to changes, (2) it is needed to
establish some kind of operation system to maximize effectiveness of
initiatives and policies, (3) it is advised that concrete and workable

44
T.K. Sung
action plans are needed to transition toward economic and social sys-
tems that can accommodate the changes in a turbulent global economic
environment with an unbalanced social structure, and (4) it is necessary
to establish the infrastructure to lead all initiatives with specific and
detailed policies that encompass local governments, industries, research
institutes, universities and social culture and the economy.
The paper has several limitations. First, the research does not pro-
vide empirical findings to support policy implications. Policy implica-
tions are built based on a literature review and reports from govern-
ments and research institutes. Second, even though the difference
between Industry 4.0 and the fourth industrial revolution is provided,
the rationale is not well grounded because most authors use the two
terms interchangeably. Third, detailed and reliable statistics for actual
progress of Industry 4.0 in manufacturing are not provided. It is too
early to report valid and reliable statistics regarding the impact or ef-
fects of Industry 4.0. Most statistics are of the case study type and are
not empirically proven.
This paper can be extended in several directions. One suggestion for
future study is to conduct empirical research to actually observe the
impact or effects of Industry 4.0 from economic, social, and business
perspectives. Second, it is more plausible to sharply distinguish Industry
4.0 from the fourth industrial revolution. Or it is advised for researchers
and practitioners to come to terms with the definitions of the two terms
to separate or integrate them. Third, a cross-national study comparing
unique or common features of each nation's Industry 4.0 initiatives or
longitudinal research that traces the trend and changes of Industry 4.0
will shed light on Industry 4.0 research.
45
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 132 (2018) 40–45
References
Baur, C., Wee, D., 2015. Manufacturing's Next Act? McKinsey & Company.
EC, 2016. Digitising European Industry Reaping the Full Benefits of a Digital Single
Market, EC.
Hermann, M., Pentek, T., Otto, B., 2016. Design Principles for Industrie 4.0 Scenarios.
Presented at the 49th Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Science.
IMD, 2017. IMD World Digital Competitiveness Ranking. pp. 2017.
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., Helbig, J., 2013. Recommendations for Implementing the
Strategic Initiative Industrie 4.0. Industrie 4.0 Working Group, Germany.
KIET, 2017. Impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on Korea Manufacturing
Industries and its Implications, Report, Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and
Trade.
Lee, J., Lapira, E., Bagheri, B., Kao, H., 2013. Recent advances and trends in predictive
manufacturing systems in big data environment. Manuf. Lett. 1 (1), 38–41.
Lee, J., Bagheri, B., Kao, H., 2014. Recent advances and trends of cyber-physical systems
and big data analytics in industrial informatics. In: IEEE Int. Conference on Industrial
Informatics (INDIN).
Liffler, M., Tschiesner, A., 2013. The Internet of Things and the Future of Manufacturing.
McKinsey & Company.
Schwab, K., 2016. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Penguin Random House, U.K.
Tec.News: 26, 2016. Harting Technology Group
Trade Brief, 2017. Vol. 22, Korea International Trade Association.
UBS, 2016. UBS White Paper for the World Economic Forum.
WEF, 2017. The Global Information Technology Report. pp. 2016.
Wolter, M., Mönnig, A., Hummel, M., Schneemann, C., Weber, E., Zika, G., Helmrich, R.,
Maier, T., Neuber-Pohl, C., 2015. Industrie 4.0 und die Folgen für Arbeitsmarkt und
Wirtschaft, IAB∙Forschungsbericht.
Tae Kyung Sung is a Professor of MIS at Kyonggi University, Korea. He received his Ph.D.
in MIS from the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Sung's research interests include in-
formation systems strategy, planning, and management, fraud detection and prevention,
creative economy, data mining and applications, business innovation, knowledge man-
agement, and technology commercialization.