The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
JMTM
29,6
910
Received 23 February 2018
Revised 30 April 2018
Accepted 25 May 2018
Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
Vol. 29 No. 6, 2018
pp. 910-936
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/JMTM-02-2018-0057
The future of manufacturing
industry: a strategic roadmap
toward Industry 4.0
Morteza Ghobakhloo
Department of Industrial Engineering,
Minab Higher Educational Center, University of Hormozgan,
Bandar Abbas, Iran
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conduct a state-of-the-art review of the ongoing research on the
Industry 4.0 phenomenon, highlight its key design principles and technology trends, identify its architectural
design and offer a strategic roadmap that can serve manufacturers as a simple guide for the process of
Industry 4.0 transition.
Design/methodology/approach – The study performs a systematic and content-centric review of
literature based on a six-stage approach to identify key design principles and technology trends of Industry
4.0. The study further benefits from a comprehensive content analysis of the 178 documents identified, both
manually and via IBM Watson’s natural language processing for advanced text analysis.
Findings – Industry 4.0 is an integrative system of value creation that is comprised of 12 design principles
and 14 technology trends. Industry 4.0 is no longer a hype and manufacturers need to get on board sooner
rather than later.
Research limitations/implications – The strategic roadmap presented in this study can serve
academicians and practitioners as a stepping stone for development of a detailed strategic roadmap for
successful transition from traditional manufacturing into the Industry 4.0. However, there is no one-size-fits-
all strategy that suits all businesses or industries, meaning that the Industry 4.0 roadmap for each company is
idiosyncratic, and should be devised based on company’s core competencies, motivations, capabilities, intent,
goals, priorities and budgets.
Practical implications – The first step for transitioning into the Industry 4.0 is the development of a
comprehensive strategic roadmap that carefully identifies and plans every single step a manufacturing
company needs to take, as well as the timeline, and the costs and benefits associated with each step. The
strategic roadmap presented in this study can offer as a holistic view of common steps that manufacturers
need to undertake in their transition toward the Industry 4.0.
Originality/value – The study is among the first to identify, cluster and describe design principles and
technology trends that are building blocks of the Industry 4.0. The strategic roadmap for Industry 4.0
transition presented in this study is expected to assist contemporary manufacturers to understand what
implementing the Industry 4.0 really requires of them and what challenges they might face during the
transition process.
Keywords Information technology, Cybernetics, Strategic planning, Industry 4.0, Industrial robots
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
The term Industry 4.0 is the reminiscent of the fourth industrial revolution which is upon
us. The first three industrial revolutions spanned almost 200 years. The first industrial
revolution, which occurred at the end of seventeenth century, was driven by the advent of
steam engines, water power and mechanization. The second industrial revolution was
driven by the assembly lines, pioneered by Henry Ford who first officialized mass
production almost a century ago. The third industrial revolution, which occurred in the
1970s, was driven by the use of computer and automation in manufacturing processes.
The term Industry 4.0 stem from its German equivalent “Industrie 4.0” which was
introduced in 2011 at the Hannover Fair. Industry 4.0 immediately became the focus of the
government in Germany, and many other European countries. In general, Industry 4.0 is
interpreted as the application of the cyber physical systems within industrial production
systems, which can be an equivalent to what has been introduced as industrial internet by Strategic
General Electric in the North America (Posada et al., 2015). Industry 4.0 might be in near roadmap
future, yet, most design principles and technologies that enable Industry 4.0 have already toward
been used in practice, and they have been an active area of research for almost a decade.
Scholars believe that Industry 4.0 is an upcoming phenomenon, whether it is wanted or Industry 4.0
not. Similar to the internet that challenged the consumer world with uncertainty in 1990s,
and later emerged as a dominating and vital technological phenomenon, Industry 4.0 is a 911
potential hit rather than a hype. Thus, all manufacturers need to ready themselves to
embrace this potential industrial revolution to remain competitive in the turbulent and
hyper-competitive market.
Technological innovations and changes in business environments affect both firms’
short-term performance and long-term sustainability. When future directions and options
in technology are obscure and uncertain, firms need to formulate an appropriate
technology strategy to support their planning for interacting with upcoming
future technological developments such as Industry 4.0 (Ivanov et al., 2016; Lee et al.,
2013). From both strategic and technologic perspectives, the transitioning toward
Industry 4.0 requires a comprehensive strategic roadmap that visualizes every further
step on the route toward an entirely digital manufacturing enterprise (Sarvari et al., 2018).
Contemporary firms use technology roadmappping extensively as a framework for
supporting research and development of future technologies that could sustain a
competitive advantage (Lee et al., 2013). Roadmapping is an important method that has
become integral to creating and delivering strategy and innovation in many organizations.
It is, therefore, obvious that an accurate technological and strategic roadmap is
indispensable for securing success in the digital transformation process needed by
Industry 4.0 (Vogel-Heuser and Hess, 2016).
The present study aims to offer an integrative framework that can be used as a stepping
stone by academicians and practitioners toward development of a detailed strategic
roadmap for successful transition from traditional manufacturing into Industry 4.0. It is
obvious that having a deep understanding of the particularities of Industry 4.0 is a
prerequisite for development of the strategic and technological roadmap. Thus, the present
study first reviews the design principles and technology trends that are the building blocks
of Industry 4.0 and explores their potential technical and economic benefits for production
processes, and further continues with introducing challenges that contemporary
manufacturers may face while transitioning into the Industry 4.0.

2. Systematic review of Industry 4.0 literature

Industry 4.0 is currently a top priority for many organizations, research centers and
universities, yet, the majority of experts in the academia believe that the Industry 4.0 term
itself is unclear, and manufacturing firms are facing difficulties when it comes to
understanding this phenomenon, and identifying the steps required for the transition
toward Industry 4.0. Accordingly, scholars such as Gilchrist (2016), Liao et al. (2017), Santos
et al. (2017), Ustundag and Cevikcan (2017) and Vogel-Heuser and Hess (2016) believe that
Industry 4.0 can be defined based on its design principles and technology trends. The
present study follows this categorization and tries to initially explain and define Industry 4.0
based on its design principles and technology trends. Design principles of Industry 4.0 are
what that explicitly address the issue of Industry 4.0 vagueness by providing a
systemization of knowledge and describing the constituents of this phenomenon (Hermann
et al., 2016). These design principles enable manufacturers to foresee the adaptation
progress of Industry 4.0, and grant them the “how to do” knowledge in developing
appropriate procedure and solutions required for Industry 4.0 transition. Alternatively,
technology trends simply refer to the advanced digital technological innovations that,
JMTM collectively, enable the rise of the new digital industrial technology, known as Industry 4.0
29,6 (Gilchrist, 2016; Liao et al., 2017).
To identify the key design principles and technology trends of Industry 4.0, this study
benefited from a systematic and content-centric literature review based on the multiple-
stage approach introduced by Webster and Watson (2002). Figure 1 provides a schematic
presentation of steps undertaken to conduct this systematic review.
912 To obtain a comprehensive set of papers, an initial advanced search was constructed
through the combination of the operator “and” in between each of the four terms of “the
fourth industrial revolution,” “the 4th industrial revolution,” “Industry 4.0” and “Industrie
4,” the two terms of “Internet of Things” or “cyber-physical systems.” Terms “Internet of
Things” and “cyber-physical systems” were added as the keywords given most of previous
scientific works on Industry 4.0 consider Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) or Internet of
Things (IoT) as the key building blocks of the fourth industrial revolution (Liao et al., 2017).
The initial systematic search used two electronic databases, namely, Web of Science and
SCOPUS to identify the key academic papers. In addition, the initial systematic search via
the abovementioned search string benefited from Google search engine to identify key
industrial/commercial/formal reports on Industry 4.0. These initial search policies,
collectively, resulted in the identification of 536 documents that might explain the
properties and particularities of Industry 4.0.
Next, the content of each of the 536 documents was carefully reviewed and the following
exclusion criteria (adapted from Liao et al., 2017) were utilized while handpicking the most
related documents:
(1) a paper has only its title, abstract and keywords in English but not its full text;
(2) a paper to be reviewed is without full text;

Stage 1:
Identifying relevant literature on Industry 4.0 (assessment of industrial reports, scientific and
academic articles and conference proceedings)

Stage 2:
Going backward by reviewing the citations for the articles identified in step 1 to determine prior
articles that need consideration

Stage 3:
Going forward by using the Web of Science and Google Scholar services to identify articles
citing the key articles identified in the previous steps

Stage 4b:
Stage 4a:
Analysis of documents identified via IBM
Manual analysis of documents identified
Watson sentiment and context analysis

Stage 5:
Identifying the key design principles and technology trends of Industry 4.0

Figure 1.
Steps undertaken for
the systematic and
content-centric review
of literature
Stage 6:
Content analysis of selected research articles and books/book sections (from reputable
publishers including Elsevier, IEEE Xplore, SAGE Publications, John Wiley & Sons and Taylor &
Francis) based on the design principles and technology trends identified in previous step
 (3) a paper is not an academic, professional or formal article (e.g. contents, forewords, Strategic
personal viewpoints, informal web-based contents, etc.); roadmap
(4) the definition about Industry 4.0 is not related to IoT and/or CPS at all; toward
(5) the document does not focus on the review, survey, discussion or problem solving of Industry 4.0
Industry 4.0;
(6) Industry 4.0 (or the alternate terms) is only used as a part of the document’s future 913
research direction, future perspective or future requirement for the large-scale
policy making;
(7) the document uses Industry 4.0 and IoT/CPS only as a cited expression; and
(8) the document uses Industry 4.0 and IoT/CPS only in keywords and/or references.
The use of the exclusion criteria resulted in the identification of 158 related documents. In
stage 2, the backward review of citation for documents identified in previous stage was
conducted. This means the reference section of the of each of the 158 documents identified in
section 1 was carefully reviewed and documents that had the notion of either of “the fourth
industrial revolution”, “the 4th industrial revolution”, “Industry 4.0” and “Industrie 4.0” were
identified, which resulted in the identification of 18 new documents. Next, the content of
each of these 18 documents was carefully reviewed and the eight exclusion criteria
introduced were applied to them, resulting to the removal of seven documents at this stage.
Accordingly, 11 new documents were identified as highly related to the Industry 4.0.
In stage 3, Google Scholar and Web of Science services were used with the aim of
recognizing the documents that cited the 169 (158+11) documents identified in steps 1 and 2.
In doing so, the full title of each of the 169 documents identified in previous steps was used
as the search term in Google Scholar and Web of Science, and the list of papers that cited
each of them as the reference was identified. This resulted in a list of 1,341 unique papers.
The title of these 1,341 papers were carefully reviewed and papers that had the notion of
either of “the fourth industrial revolution,” “the 4th industrial revolution,” “Industry 4.0” and
“Industrie 4.0” in their title were identified, which resulted in the identification of 98 new
documents. In total, 53 of these 98 documents were already in the pool of 169 handpicked
documents. Thus, the content of 45 remaining paper was assessed based on the eight
exclusion criteria. As a result, nine more documents were identified as highly related to the
Industry 4.0, and were further added to the final pool of related documents, leading to the
final pool of 178 documents.
At Stage 4, the content of each of the 178 documents was assessed qualitatively. In
addition, a qualitative-quantitative analysis of the documents identified was conducted via
IBM Watosn sentiment and context tool with the aim of highlighting the similarities within
the documents in terms of sentiments, keywords, taxonomy and concepts related to the
Industry 4.0. Based on the procedure employed in Stage 4, the key design principles and
technology trends of Industry 4.0 were identified as in Figure 2, in which the inner circle
represents design principles and outer circle includes technology trends.
The use of the search string and the exclusion criteria explained above resulted in the final
pool of 178 documents that directly addressed Industry 4.0 phenomenon and some of its
challenges, issues or trends. Out of these 178 documents, 89 documents were non-academic
articles (e.g. IBM’s catalog on Industry 4.0 and IoT Connected Manufacturing, or the EU’s
Digital Transformation Monitor report on Industry 4.0), 43 documents were journal article, 16
documents were book/book section, and 30 documents were conference paper. To ensure the
rigidity and reliability of the content analysis, and to better understand how academia defines
Industry 4.0 based on its design principles and technology trends, only journal articles and
books/book sections that were published by reputable academic publishers (including
Elsevier, IEEE Xplore, SAGE Publications, John Wiley & Sons and Taylor & Francis) were
JMTM
29,6

Things (loT)
Internet of

S)
e (lo f
Se rnet o
Te
Se nolo
914

ch
ma gi

rvic
nti es

Inte
c
Cy f
be t o P)
Sy r-Ph
Service ne (Io
ste ys Orientation t er le
ms ical Corporate Smart In op
Social Pe
Product
Responsibility

Product Smart
Personalization Factory et of
Simulat
ion an Intern D)
o
Modelin d Data (l
g

Horizontal Industry Interoperability

Integration 4.0

Cloud
ive
Addit ring Comp
uting
ufactu
Man Vertical Modularity
Integration

d Real-Time Decentralization
an ts Bi
ion bo Capability An g D
at Ro Virtualization aly ata
m l tic
to ria s
Au ust
d
In
Rea nted

Blo
Cybersecurity
lity

ckc
me

h
Aug

ain

Figure 2.
Design principles and
technology trends of
Industry 4.0

selected from the pool of the 178 documents (Stage 6 in Figure 1), leading to the selection of
28 articles/books/book-sections to be assessed as Table I. The results of content analysis of
these selected documents are presented as Table I, from which it is obvious that Industry 4.0 is
an integrative system of value creation that is comprised of 12 design principles and
14 technology trends. Before moving toward introducing the Industry 4.0 architecture
and explaining how its components interact with each other, each of the design principles and
technology trends identified are first explained briefly.

2.1 Technology trends

The IoT enables physical objects to communicate with each other and further to share
formation and to coordinate decisions (Al-Fuqaha et al., 2015). There is much fuzziness
around the definition of IoT given scholars of various disciplines, stakeholders, business
alliances and standardization bodies have approached this paradigm based on their specific
interests, finalities and backgrounds (Atzori et al., 2010). IoT in the Industry 4.0 context is
commonly referred to as Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), which addresses the industrial
application of IoT (Wang, Wan, Zhang, Li and Zhang, 2016). IIoT not only refers to the
network of the physical objects in industry but also includes the digital representations of
products, processes and manufacturing infrastructure such as 3D models or physical
 Design principles
Research Service Smart Smart Interoperability Modularity Decentralization Virtualization Real-Time Vertical Horizontal Product Corporate Internet Internet
Orientation Product Factory Capability Integration Integration Personalization Social of of
Responsibility Things Services
Lasi et al.
(2014) x x x x x x
Posada et al.
(2015) x x x x x x
Lee et al. (2015)
Kagermann
(2015) x x
Vogel-Heuser
and Hess
(2016) x x x x x x
Roblek et al.
(2016) x x x x x x
Wang, Wan,
Zhang, Li and
Zhang (2016);
Wang,
Gunasekaran,
Ngai and
Papadopoulos
(2016) x x x
Mosterman
and Zander
(2016) x
Gilchrist
(2016) x x x x x x x x x x x x
Wan et al.
(2016) x
Theorin et al.
(2017) x x
Zhang et al.
(2017) x x x
Hofmann and
Rüsch (2017) x x x x x x

(continued )
roadmap
Strategic

Industry 4.0

915
toward

in the context of
Industry 4.0
Table I.

academic documents
analysis of key
Results of content
 29,6

916

Table I.
JMTM
Devezas and
Sarygulov
(2017) x x
Lu (2017) x x x x x x x x x x x x
Wollschlaeger
et al. (2017) x x x
Qi and Tao
(2018) x x
Thames and
Schaefer
(2017) x x x x
Strange and
Zucchella
(2017) x x x
Sikorski et al.
(2017) x
Devezas and
Sarygulov
(2017) x x x x x x
Liao et al.
(2017) x x x x x x x
Moeuf et al.
(2018) x
Li (2018) x x x x x x
Satoglu et al.
(2018) x
Jabbour et al.
(2018a, b) x
Perales et al.
(2018) x x x x x x x x x x
Salkin et al.
(2018) x x
Research Technology trends
Lasi et al. Automation
(2014) and Simulation
Internet of Internet Cloud Big Data Augmented Industrial Additive and Cyber-Physical Semantic
People of Data Computing Analytics Blockchain Cyber Security Reality Robotics Manufacturing Modeling Systems Technologies
Posada et al.
(2015) x x
Lee et al. (2015) x x x x x
Kagermann
(2015) x x

(continued )
Vogel-Heuser
and Hess
(2016) x x x
Roblek et al.
(2016) x x x x
Wang, Wan,
Zhang, Li and
Zhang (2016);
Wang,
Gunasekaran,
Ngai and
Papadopoulos
(2016) x x
Mosterman
and Zander
(2016) x x
Gilchrist
(2016) x x
Wan et al.
(2016) x x x x x x x x
Theorin et al.
(2017) x x x x
Zhang et al.
(2017)
Hofmann and
Rüsch (2017) x x x
Devezas and
Sarygulov
(2017) x x x x x
Lu (2017) x x x
Wollschlaeger
et al. (2017) x x x x x x
Qi and Tao
(2018) x
Thames and
Schaefer
(2017) x x x x x x
Strange and x
Zucchella
(2017) x x
Sikorski et al.
(2017) x x x x

(continued )
roadmap
Strategic

Industry 4.0

917
toward

Table I.
 29,6

918

Table I.
JMTM

Devezas and
Sarygulov
(2017) x x x x
Liao et al.
(2017)
Moeuf et al.
(2018) x x x x x x x x
Li (2018) x x x x x x x
Satoglu et al.
(2018) x x x x x
Jabbour et al.
(2018a, b) x x x x x
Perales et al.
(2018) x x x
Salkin et al.
(2018) x x x x
x x x x x x x x
behavior models of machines ( Jeschke et al., 2017). IIoT offers better visibility and insight Strategic
into the firm’s operations and assets through integration of machine sensors, middleware, roadmap
transportation equipment, healthcare equipment, software and backend cloud computing toward
and storage systems (Gilchrist, 2016). IIoT builds on the philosophy that smart machines
excel humans at accurately and consistently capturing and communicating data. Industrial Industry 4.0
reports indicate that IIoT holds a great potential for enabling predictive maintenance
services, green manufacturing initiatives, product quality efficiency, energy optimization 919
and design optimization.
Internet of Services (IoS) is concerned with the systematical use of the internet for new
ways of value creation through materialization of Product-as-a-Service (PaaS) business
model. Manufacturers of consumer products are nowadays striving to establish a direct link
to consumers and to strengthen their competitive position by offering supplementary
services and cultivating additional sources of revenue (Becker et al., 2014), and IoS provides
the technological infrastructure required. PaaS business model has been enabled by IoS
infrastructure such as sensor-based products that continuously feed information about
product usage and condition to the manufacturer, who can then leverage the data for a
variety of purposes, from charging the consumer based on the level of usage of the product
to delivering proactive and preventive maintenance (Leminen et al., 2012). The Otis Elevator
Company for example supplies its elevators with sensors, which send data into their cloud.
This company further analyzes the data and sells a predictive maintenance service package.
Tesla, Inc., as another example, delivers sensor ready upgradeable automobiles that can
receive purchasable system upgrades via internet, leading to extra revenue for Tesla, Inc.
Internet of People (IoP) refers to a complex socio-technical system where the humans and
their personal devices are not seen merely as end users of applications, but become active
elements of the internet (Conti et al., 2017). The infrastructure necessary for IoP is formed
around the combination of the social devices (SDs) and People as a Service (PeaaS). In such
environment SDs enhance humans’ personal devices (e.g. smartphones) proactive
capabilities to coordinate their interactions with other devices linked to the IoT, whereas
PeaaS offers humans’ personal devices with serving capabilities that let individuals execute
their intentions using their devices, such as providing their context and sociological
profile online (Miranda et al., 2015). For the first time in the history of humankind, people are
willing to put their lives online and make a public virtual communication about how they
are feeling and what their interests are. These data reflecting actual human sentiment
are available within people’s social media posts and internet activities. With comprehensive
data gathering, computation and simulation in the IoP environment, companies will be able
to better forecast market trends thanks to a deeper understanding of consumer buying
patterns and what triggers a purchase, and produce real-time actionable results.
Internet of Data (IoD) can be regarded as the extension of the IoT in the digital world
(Fan et al., 2012), which very recently has received attention from scholars. IoD will be
primarily concerned with the means of effective data transfer, storage, management and
processing in the IoT environment where countless objects produce a staggering amount of
data (Anderl, 2014). IoD would allow all the data entities to be identified and inventoried in
the system, and data activities and data vitalization results to be collected in virtual tags.
This, in turn, enables organizations to benefit from data tracing, data identification, data
vitalization and further collect valuable business intelligence thanks to the big data
analytics. IoD, therefore, can be regarded as conceptual equivalent of database management
systems that can serve as a building block of IIoT, IoS and IoP (Anderl et al., 2018) given it
enables the acquisition, storage and management of open data, social data, and crowd and
sensor data (Motta et al., 2014).
Cloud computing is not a completely new concept, yet there is no universal or standard
definition of cloud computing. This paradigm evolved based on the recent advancements in
JMTM hardware, virtualization technology, distributed computing and service delivery over the
29,6 internet (Oliveira et al., 2014). The application of cloud computing provides manufacturers
with cloud-based software application, web-based management dashboard and cloud-based
collaboration, and enables the integration of distributed manufacturing resources
and establishment of a collaborative and flexible infrastructure across geographically
distributed manufacturing and service sites (He and Xu, 2015). This will, in turn, lead to the
920 cloud manufacturing as the next generation manufacturing paradigm (Ooi et al., 2018).
Big data technologies refer to a new generation of technologies and architectures that
enable organizations to economically extract value through discovering, capturing and
analyzing very large volumes of a wide variety of data. Big data analytics enables
contemporary organizations to better gain value from the massive amounts of information they
already have, and identify what is likely to happen next and what actions should be taken to
achieve the optimal results (LaValle et al., 2011). The concept of big data has been around for
many years. However, firms nowadays move toward big data analytics to instantly identify
insights and upcoming trends for immediate decisions, and sustain competitiveness (Hu et al.,
2014). In particular, big data analytics would enable manufacturers to improve their asset
efficiency and performance, enhance product customization, better administrate predictive
maintenance and prevent asset breakdowns, and streamline production processes and supply
chain management initiative more effectively (Babiceanu and Seker, 2016; Wang,
Gunasekaran, Ngai and Papadopoulos, 2016). IBM cognitive manufacturing service is an
example of the industrial application of big data analytics.
Blockchain also known as distributed ledger technology is the foundation of
cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, but its capabilities extend far beyond
that. Blockchain is immutable, transparent and redefines trust, as it enables transparent,
secure, trustworthy and swift public or private solutions (Underwood, 2016). The scientific
community believes that blockchain technology is critical to Industry 4.0 because
cryptocurrencies allow countless smart devices to perform transparent, secure, fast and
frictionless financial transactions, fully autonomous without human intervention in the IoT
environment (Devezas and Sarygulov, 2017; Sikorski et al., 2017). The application of
blockchain is not limited to the financial services, and it can be used for any type of digitized
transfer of information. Industry 4.0 develops on the foundation of automation, and
blockchain can operate as the ledger to develop trusted and autonomous relationship among
different components of smart factories, suppliers and even customers. For example, putting
blockchain between IIoT, cyber-physical production systems, and supply partners can
enable machineries within the smart factory to securely and autonomously place an order
for their replacement parts to further optimize the processes.
Augmented reality (AR) has been regarded as a highly promising technology that allows
for visualization of computer graphics placed in the real environment (Yew et al., 2016).
Thanks to the ever-increasing advancement of computer software and hardware design and
development, the AR is commonly used in the description, planning and real-time operation
monitoring, fault diagnostic and recovery, and training related to industrial products and
processes (Doshi et al., 2017; Khan et al., 2011). Industrial reports indicate that modern
manufacturers have implemented AR in support of employee training, simplification of
maintenance tasks, quality management and control practices, and product design among
others (Elia et al., 2016).
Automation and industrial robotics are clearly on the rise, in manufacturing and
increasingly in everyday environments. International Federation of Robotics reports that by
the end of 2016 robot sales increased by 16 percent to 294,312 units, a new peak, thanks to
the key role of electrical/electronics industry and automobile industry as the main users of
industrial robotics (IFR, 2017). Demand for industrial robots has increased due to the
ongoing trend toward automation among manufactures. Industrial robotics and automation
promise numerous benefits such as reduced part cycle time, lower defect rate, higher quality Strategic
and reliability, reduced waste and better floor space utilization, making it indispensable to roadmap
world-class manufacturers (Esmaeilian et al., 2016). toward
Cybersecurity is a key element of Industry 4.0 given all internet-facing organizations are
at risk of attack. The Stuxnet can never be forgotten, the notorious malware that infested Industry 4.0
control systems at the nuclear plants and manipulated the speed of centrifuges, causing
them to spin out of control. There is no doubt that Industry 4.0 will be challenged by the 921
traditional cybersecurity issues along with its very own unique security and privacy issues
(Thames and Schaefer, 2017). Within Industry 4.0 environment, “things” are connected
through the internet or amongst themselves to create a fully interconnected industrial
networked environment across the supply chain. It is obvious that the tremendous number
of interconnected things in the Industry 4.0 context requires secure, safe and reliable
communication so that any decisions and actions made are based on dependable and
properly authorized information (Mehnen et al., 2017).
Additive manufacturing denotes the manufacturing technique in which parts are built by
melting thin layers of powder and adding one layer of material, either plastic or metal, on top of
another, based on the geometry suggested by Computer-Aided Design (CAD) modules
(Esmaeilian et al., 2016). Additive manufacturing, 3D printing technology in particular, enables
manufacturers to produce prototypes and proof of concept designs, which simplify and speed
up the processes of new product design and manufacturing (Gilchrist, 2016). Industry 4.0 will
bring customers and suppliers closer together, and it will become a common procedure for
customers to directly send production orders to the production partner in real-time. In such
circumstances, additive manufacturing can support the “smart factory” idea through improved
speed to production, manufacturing design freedom, supply chain reductions, rapid
prototyping and small-scale production experiments (Lasi et al., 2014).
Simulation and modeling techniques aim for simplification and economic favoring of the
design, realization, tests and running a live operation of manufacturing systems (Kocian
et al., 2012). In the smart factories, simulation and modeling will be necessary for leveraging
real-time data to mirror the physical world in a virtual model, which can include machines,
products and humans (Rüßmann et al., 2015). Simulation and modeling not only enable
manufacturers to prevent errors at an early stage that might otherwise result in substantial
costs for plant operators, but they can be used to optimize a manufacturing plant during
ongoing daily operation (Gilchrist, 2016). For example, manufacturers nowadays can
simulate the machining of parts using data from the physical machine leading to the
reduction of setup time for the actual machining process by as much as 80 percent
(Rüßmann et al., 2015). Industrial reports reveal that world-class manufactures see a much
greater potential for simulation in the future in an attempt for virtual testing of complete
production systems.
CPS is a collection of transformative technologies that enables connection of the
operations of physical assets and computational capabilities (Lee et al., 2015). CPS is
controlled and monitored by computer-based algorithms, and is tightly integrated with its
users (objects, humans and machines) via internet. Gilchrist (2016) explains that since CPS
can be just about anything that has integrated computation, networking and physical
processes, a human operator in a production line is a CPS and so is a smart factory. As
another example, a smart production line can be regarded as a CPS in which machinery,
operators, materials and even work in progress can communicate with each other and
further monitor the production information or pass it to another networked node in which
computation, analysis and decision making will be performed and feedback will be provided
if and when needed.
Semantic technologies can provide a common standard for communication and a
standardized language for exchange of information among different components of
JMTM Industry 4.0 ( Janev and Vraneš, 2011). Semantic technologies achieve this standard via
29,6 offering an abstraction layer above existing IoT technologies and infrastructure that
connects data, content and processes. Although IIoT provides an environment in which
physical devices are embedded into electronic systems and discover, monitor, control and
interact with each other over various network interfaces, however, IIoT lacks a universal
application protocol, which prevents the integration of machinery from various
922 manufacturers, and different components of the smart factory into a single application
(Thuluva et al., 2017). Under these circumstances, integration of semantic web with Web of
Things (WoT) technologies can provide standardized knowledge representation formalisms
such as Resource Description Framework or Web Ontology Language. This feature, in turn,
facilitates interoperability among assets and their services across domains, and facilitates
communications among heterogeneous components of Industry 4.0.

2.2 Design principles

Service orientation in the context of Industry 4.0 mostly refers to the concepts of
Manufacturing as a Service (MaaS) and PaaS. MaaS business model refers to the collective
use of a networked manufacturing infrastructure to produce goods. Interconnectivity
between manufacturers and the widespread of IoT and cloud computing has offered a new
manufacturing ecosystems by allowing companies to communicate their manufacturing
needs and capacities automatically. In this environment, complex manufacturing tasks can
be accomplished collaboratively by several manufacturing services from different
companies. This means, instead of the physical product, the production capacity of
manufacturers can be regarded as the primary good (Tao and Qi, 2017). In the PaaS
business model, products are delivered as a service or virtualized experience, and instead of
a single upfront payment, customers subscribe to the product and pay a recurring fee on a
perpetual per-outcome basis. This business model is particularly enabled by the IoS
technologies that can be built into products (e.g. goods, software and infrastructure) to
monitor when and how they are used.
Smart product refers to a new generation of physical products that, thanks to the
different types of sensors embedded to them, can communicate with the environment, and
collect, store and transfer data, during their life cycles (Schmidt et al., 2015). This means that
in the manufacturing stage, smart products at the production line can communicate
valuable information regarding where they are being manufactured, what their current state
is, and what steps are required for them to reach their desired state. At the consumption
stage, smart products, along with IoS infrastructure, facilitate the materialization of PaaS
business model (Gilchrist, 2016).
Smart factory denotes a highly productive manufacturing environment of connected and
intelligent machines and materials where waste, defect, and, downtime are minimized
(Diederik et al., 2014). In this environment, process efficiency is optimized through machinery
and equipment automation and self-optimization. Smart factory is indeed a dynamic
integrated cyber-physical-human manufacturing system in which the physical resources are
implemented as smart things that communicate with each other and with human resources
via IIoT and IoP and WoT infrastructure (Wang, Wan, Zhang, Li and Zhang, 2016).
Interoperability can be simply defined as the capability of systems to transact with other
systems. In the Industry 4.0 context, interoperability is the ability of all components such as
human resources, the smart products, the smart factories, and any relevant technologies to
connect, communicate, and operate together via the IIoT, IoS, IoP and WoT (Gilchrist, 2016).
A more detailed consideration reveals that interoperability in Industry 4.0 can be defined in
four different levels of operational, semantic, systematical and technical interoperability (Lu,
2017). It is critical to note that interoperability differs from data standardization as it is
concerned with the meaning of the contents of the data and how different components of a
system can communicate and understand the meaning of the data, and make a decision Strategic
based on it in support of flexibility. roadmap
Modularity is another design principle of Industry 4.0, which is concerned with shifting toward
from linear manufacturing and planning, rigid systems and inflexible production models
toward an agile system that can adapt to an ever-changing circumstances and requirements Industry 4.0
(Gilchrist, 2016). Modularity involves the entire production and manufacturing levels
(Ghobakhloo and Azar, 2018), and builds on agile supply chain, flexible material flow systems, 923
modular decision-making procedures and flexible processes (Perales et al., 2018). Modularity is
complemented by product personalization, which is another design principle of Industry 4.0.
Product personalization is indeed a more customer-oriented implication of mass customization
(Yang et al., 2017). The introduction of modern technology trends such as responsive CPS, IoT,
open product architecture, automation and additive manufacturing has enabled product
reconfiguration based on the continually changing customer preferences, mostly identified via
assessment and prediction of consumers’ behavior ( Jiang et al., 2016). This means
manufacturers not only should meet customers’ existing demands and preferences, but also
benefit from IoP, simulation and big data analytics to forecast upcoming market trends and
customers’ needs (Lu, 2017; Wang, Gunasekaran, Ngai and Papadopoulos, 2016).
Decentralization enables different components of the smart factory to work independently
and make decisions autonomously in a way they remain aligned with the path toward the
single ultimate organizational goal (Gilchrist, 2016). Self-regulating systems and intelligent
control mechanisms such as CPS are among the key enablers of decentralization (Lasi et al.,
2014). Companies profit from decentralization thanks to the simplified planning and
coordination of different processes. For example, the synchronization of eKanban with the
components of a smart warehouse (e.g. automated guided vehicle or RFID tagged robots) can
significantly reduce the complexity of central planning by providing the freedom of decision
making (MPDV, 2015).
Virtualization enables the replication of a “digital twin” of the entire value chain (smart
warehouse, smart factory, all related equipment and machinery, and even smart products) by
merging sensor data acquired from the physical world into virtual or simulation-based models
(Moreno et al., 2017). The virtual twin of the smart factory, for example, would enable process
engineers and designers to enhance existing processes or optimize the functionality of
production lines in complete isolation, without disrupting the physical processes in the smart
factory they have virtualized (Gilchrist, 2016). Alternatively, the digital twin of a smart
product would enable manufacturers to have a complete digital footprint of their existing or
new products all throughout their lifecycle, from design and development to the end of the
product. This not only would enable a better understanding of the performance of the product
at the consumption stage, but also allows companies to virtually evaluate the system that
builds the product (Schleich et al., 2017; Tao et al., 2018). Virtualization is heavily dependent
upon the real-time capability. In general, Industry 4.0 is centered on cumulative, real-time,
real-world data across an array of dimensions such as smart warehouse, smart factory, smart
product and smart business partners, meaning that real-time capability is deeply supported
by internet of everything (Lee et al., 2015; Qi and Tao, 2018; Zhang et al., 2017). Real-time
capability is not just about collecting data, as it involves real-time data analysis,
real-time decision making according to the new findings (Moeuf et al., 2018), and even
real-time cyber-security attack detection (Thames and Schaefer, 2017).
System integration refers to the process of bringing together the component sub-
systems into one system in a way the system is able to deliver the intended functionality.
Moving forward toward Industry 4.0 requires the vertical integration of layer upon layer
of systems and technologies, some dating back several decades (Posada et al., 2015). Smart
factories as the heart of Industry 4.0 cannot work on a standalone basis, and vertical
networking of smart factories, smart products and other smart production systems is
JMTM indeed a necessity. The integration is not limited to the manufacturing systems and
29,6 technologies. Industry 4.0 relies on horizontal integration for connecting all functions and
data across the value chain at the global scope. This integration across business partners
and customers facilitates the establishment and maintenance of networks that create and
add value (Rüßmann et al., 2015).
Corporate social responsibility represents a form of corporate self-regulation that
924 integrates into to the existing business model. In the manufacturing environment, corporate
social responsibility mostly involves areas such as environmental and labor regulations.
Within the fourth industrial revolution, robotics and industrial automation will heavily
influence job opportunities in many future-oriented corporations, and scholars argue that
Industry 4.0 is most likely to act as a job killer. It is believed that the magnitude of this
negative impact on jobs will depend on the worker’s skill level, and low to middle-skill
workers will be negatively affected the most. It is also believed that technology has always
ended up creating more jobs than it wipes out, thus, Industry 4.0 is also expected to create
numerous job opportunities, particularly related to computer engineering, informatics and
mathematics. Therefore, in a more proactive note, companies that aim for the Industry 4.0
should emphasize the development of skills for their future workforce (Choi, 2017). From the
environmental sustainability perspective, Industry 4.0 offers immense opportunities for
the realization of sustainable manufacturing as it enables the efficient coordination of the
product, material and energy all throughout the product life cycles; sustainable design of
products; sustainable design of processes and materialization of the resource efficiency;
a higher efficiency of workers thanks to the IIoT infrastructure; and deployment of the
green-leagile business model (Stock and Seliger, 2016).

3. Industry 4.0 architecture

There are different perspectives toward defining the architecture of Industry 4.0. Based on the
design principles and technology trends introduced, and several definitions that exist within
the literature, this study introduces the architecture for Industry 4.0 as Figure 2. Industry 4.0
is a dynamic and integrated system for exerting control over the entire value chain of the
lifecycle of products. Vertical and horizontal integration and fusion of the physical and the
virtual worlds is at the heart of Industry 4.0, and technology trends such as CPS, IIoT, IoS and
IoP, Blockchain and WoT enable such level of integration at a global scale. CPSs are central to
the Industry 4.0 vision given they offer the highest levels of control, surveillance, transparency
and efficiency in the production process (Hofmann and Rüsch, 2017) and the realization of
smart products and PaaS concept (Gilchrist, 2016). CPSs communicate over the internet of
everything infrastructures, and IIoT and IoS in particular to enable the so-called “smart
factory.” The smart factory follows the idea of decentralized production system, in which
machines, processes, human beings and resources communicate with each other in real-time
as naturally as in a social network (Hofmann and Rüsch, 2017). Given the manner in which
machines, devices and human resources interact, communicate and learn from each other
within the smart factory context, cloud technologies, IoD and big data analytics are vital for
collecting, storing and more importantly analyzing a huge stream of process, production and
supply chain data. Data mining for relevant or pertinent information acquisition, coupled with
virtualization would enable manufacturers to maintain a competitive edge in operations
management and offer a higher production efficiency thanks to the early anomalies and
system failures detection. As another component of smart factory setting, AR holds a massive
potential, as it facilitates industrial maintenance, workforce training, process management and
control, and broadens the boundaries of innovation. These components, in conjunction with
the application of industrial robotics and additive manufacturing would enable manufacturers
to transform their production strategy from mass customization to mass personalization
(Wang et al., 2017) (Figure 3).
 lloT Big Customer integration
ta
Da
Supply chain integration Real time inventory
management and control lloT loS
- Quantitates
lloT
- Capacities
- Joint NPD - Quantitates Real time production Real-time equipment
- Delivery dates - Spare parts flow monitoring management
- Logistics

Feedback
- Orders
lloT lloT lloT

Smart
Product
Smart
Factory
Suppliers

Material
Robotics 3D printers

Smart
Warehouse lloT
Paas

Maas
Aggregated product

Smart lines
and process data analysis

CUSTOMERS
Automated - Future demand
inspection - Preferences loP
- Quantities
Augmented - Human error reduction - Time-in-system analysis - Financial transaction
reality - Maintenance and Remote - Production scheduling Simulation
Assistance - Setup and configuration
- Inventory and logistics optimization
Customer pattern recognition

- Safety management - Deliveries optimization

- Human error reduction
- Design and visualization - Reliability analysis
- Training - Capital investments
evaluation

loP
roadmap
Strategic

Industry 4.0

925
toward

architecture
Figure 3.
Industry 4.0
JMTM 4. Industry 4.0 roadmap
29,6 Industry 4.0 is no longer a “future trend” and many leading organizations have taken it at
the center of their strategic agenda, and those manufacturers that are able to catch up will
benefit from the competitive advantages that are available to the early adopters. The digital
transition required by Industry 4.0 not only challenges companies’ capacity to innovate, but
also requires new strategies and organizational models, and organization-wide changes in
926 physical infrastructure, manufacturing operations and technologies, human resources and
management of practices (Gilchrist, 2016). This fundamental transition can look
overwhelming to smaller manufacturers, and it is likely for typical manufactures to avoid
embarking on the journey to digitization for fear of not having every single technological
block and design principle in place. Organizations need to develop a strategic roadmap to
better time, visualize and understand each move and decisions that they need to make to
facilitate the transition toward Industry 4.0. This study develops and introduces a basic
form of the strategic roadmap for Industry 4.0 transition as Figure 4, which is derived from
existing and documented best practices within strategic management, marketing,
management information system, supply chain management and manufacturing
technology management background.
The first phase of the roadmap is the strategic management of Industry 4.0 transition,
which starts with defining Industry 4.0 short-term, medium-term and long-term strategies.
These strategies should be defined in a time-based plan and describe where the company is,
where it needs to go and how to get there, based on the Industry 4.0 pre-set visions and
plans (Schumacher et al., 2016). Digitization and Industry 4.0 transition require committed
leadership and fundamental resource allocation. Appointing an Industry 4.0 transition team
that manages and leads the digital transformation, and integration of existing systems and
infrastructure is of prime importance (Müller et al., 2018; Ustundag and Cevikcan, 2017). Not
all organization have the adequate IT maturity to embrace Industry 4.0, and not all
manufacturers with working IoT-enabled production or service systems are large enough to
handle horizontal integration and sustain their competitive position in the globalized and
hyper-competitive market (Gilchrist, 2016; Leyh et al., 2016). This means Industry 4.0
necessitates numerous Acquisitions and Mergers (M&A) at the global scale, and
manufacturers of any size that aim for digitization should carefully plan for potential M&A
opportunities ahead of time. The company and the Industry 4.0 transition team in particular,
should decode the transition procedure into a detailed project plan, specify the
characteristics of work in each phase of transition and further conduct the
comprehensive analysis of costs and benefits associated with each phase (Galpin and
Herndon, 2014). In doing so, functional needs and priorities required by each of the Industry
4.0 transition phases should be identified, and the inter- and intra-organizational changes
that are associated with each phase of the transition should be identified, managed and
facilitated (Kagermann, 2015).
The Industry 4.0 is revolutionizing the rules of business, as well as the consumer market
who is looking for smart products that can be offered as services, and are more personalized
than ever before. Nevertheless, many traditional manufacturers continue to operate under
marketing strategies that have already passed their effectiveness. Manufacturers that are
transitioning into Industry 4.0 need to devise new marketing strategies, and the assessment
of their level of digital market maturity is the first step for this purpose (Bettiol et al., 2018).
To fully capitalize on opportunities offered by digitization, manufacturers need to develop
capabilities in blockchain technologies and data analytics in IoP environment. At the more
micro level, and with the advent of IoP platforms (such as social media listening tools) and
big data analytics platforms (e.g. predictive analytics tools), companies need to establish an
up-to-date, real-time and accurate 360-degree view of potential customers to determine
future market trends and customer demands (IBM, 2018). This capability, in turn, would
 Planning business expansion and
diversification within Industry 4.0
Defining functional needs and priorities
required by Industry 4.0 transition
Strategic
environment
Planning technological transition roadmap
required by Industry 4.0 transition

Appointing an Industry 4.0

Establishing
toward
Strategic Defining Industry Conducting the cost-benefit analysis of

Management
4.0 strategies transition management team
a timeline for different
stages of the transition transitioning to Industry 4.0 Industry 4.0
Facilitating connectivity and
interoperability across the organization
Planning possible mergers and
acquisitions within Industry 4.0
environment
Facilitating and managing changes
required by Industry 4.0 927
Blockchain technology
adoption Executing smart product as a
Digital marketing maturity services business model
assessment Establishing 360 degree
customer view
Establishing short to long term
Marketing strategy smart contracts
Establishing market sensing
Data mining in IoP and learning strategy
environment
Data driven marketing

Time-cost assessment for

Assessment of Human
training employees
Resource (HR) competencies
Training HRs that lack
for Industry 4.0
required expertise
(purposeful training)
Employing skilled HRs
Human resources wherever needed
strategy HR talent recognition and (purposeful hiring) Multi-skilled employees
management
Cross-functional training
Employee involvement and
empowerment

Assessment of IT
(hardware, software, IoT/IoS/IoD)
infrastructure Identifying the most
meaningful approach for using
existing IT infrastructure Harmonizing and integrating
Considering different business
IT maturity segment that need networking
existing and newly added IT
infrastructure
strategy IT governance strategy and integration Adding new types of IT
infrastructure when needed
Cost-benefit assessment of
new IT infrastructure

Controlling manufacturing Manufacturing execution Intelligent ERP

processes via programmable system
logic controller
Vertical IIoT strategies

Production process
supervision via SCADA Collecting machine level data
Smart Establishing smart connection
Production process
manufacturing across the factory
supervision via distributed Data analytics
strategy control system
Smart intra-factory logistics
via autonomous mobile units Integrated simulation and
(e.g., AGVs) Digital Twin model
Enhanced human interface for
robot programming Human-robot safe interaction

Physical flow integration

Cross-functional IT across supply chain
integration
Information sharing
IT alignment across value across supply chain
Data consistency chain
Smart supply Activity integration across
supply chain Smart supply chain
chain
WoT/Blockchain
management Financial flow integration
strategy Shared managerial across supply chain Figure 4.
knowledge management
The strategic
Shared vision
Shared manufacturing roadmap for Industry
knowledge management
4.0 transition

enable modern marketing strategies such as market sensing and learning strategy as well as
data driven marketing, which coupled with blockchain-based platforms and smart
contracts, can ensure the success of the PaaS business model in the Industry 4.0
environment (Kim and Laskowski, 2018; Tao and Qi, 2017).
It is well agreed that Industry 4.0 results in a fundamental change in the division of work
between humans and machines. Experts believe that competent employees are among the
JMTM most important success factors in shaping digitization. Industry 4.0 merges the real and
29,6 virtual worlds thanks to the modern technology trends such as CPS, IIoT, IoD, IoS, robotics,
simulation, cybersecurity and WoT, which demand for a high level of technological
understanding and relevant qualifications from the employee side (Gilchrist, 2016). From the
human resource management perspective, the first step for the success of Industry 4.0
transition is the assessment of human resources competencies for Industry 4.0. Companies
928 need to carefully assess the skillset in their workforce and recognize the digital skills
amongst current employees, and further identify the skillsets that the company currently
lacks (Hecklau et al., 2016). Although current employees may not have the entire competency
needed to operate in a digitized factory, however, they are well-experienced about the
company’s procedures, norms and workplace culture. Even if the Industry 4.0 transition
requires a complete overhaul to the company’s operations and manufacturing processes, the
existing employees have a significant advantage, and the decision should be to train them
for the necessary skills and, professionally adapt them to the upcoming technologies and
procedures. For example, all employees should go through purposeful computer and IT
training programs given their real working world will progressively integrate with the
virtual one. Yet, some aspect of Industry 4.0 transition requires advanced expertise such as
computer engineering skills, and not every skills can be taught in onsite training.
Manufacturers, therefore, need to perform detailed cost-benefit analysis of different human
resource development initiatives, and aim for employing new talents in the process of
digitization whenever needed. Industry 4.0 is a dynamic trend of automation and
digitization, and its technology blocks progress continuously at an exponential rate,
meaning manufacturers should look for new recruits that are multi-skilled and flexible
enough to adapt to any technology that may emerge as a requirement for Industry 4.0
(Shamim et al., 2016).
Industry 4.0 necessitates the digitization of products, processes and systems, together
with their interconnectedness, which not only concern separate functional areas such as the
shop floor or IT department, but also takes place all throughout the entire value chain (Leyh
et al., 2016). The design principles and technology trends of Industry 4.0 such as horizontal
and vertical integration, IIoT, IoD, CPS, interoperability, simulation and blockchain indicate
that the fourth industrial revolution is all about IT. IT governance is typically the weakest
aspect of corporate governance (Wu et al., 2015), and as the first step of IT maturity strategy
for Industry 4.0, manufacturers should ensure that IT governance team is in place to
strategize, budget, execute, control and report on IT advancement projects and operations in
accordance with the requirements of Industry 4.0 transition. IT governance team should
perform a detailed analysis of existing IT infrastructure (e.g. networks, computer hardware
and software, sensors, controllers and actuators) and identify the most meaningful approach
for using them in support of Industry 4.0 transition. IT governance team should further
identify different business segments that need networking and integration, and when the
existing IT infrastructure does not fully support the digitization of these business segments,
formulate and implement necessary IT development strategies (Savtschenko et al., 2017).
The key to the success of Industry 4.0 transition is the ability for the entire component of the
smart factory to communicate to one another at the field level, in real-time and with an
intelligent functionality that collects data, interprets it, and offers meaningful insights to the
management system (Gilchrist, 2016). However, in reality, component of a smart factory
such as machinery, equipment and industrial robots come from different vendors, have
different technological characteristics, and operate on different communication protocols
such as Modbus, PROFIBUS or PROFINET (Kjellsson et al., 2009). At a more micro level, IT
governance team needs to ensure that existing and the newly added IT infrastructure are
harmonized and integrated in a way all the components of the smart factory are
interconnected and interoperable (Chen et al., 2018).
 Smart manufacturing system, characterized by connectivity, integration, transparency, Strategic
proactivity and agility, aims for the shift from traditional automation to a fully connected roadmap
and flexible manufacturing system that thrives on a constant stream of data from toward
interconnected production systems and operations to learn and adapt to the ever-changing
demands (Kang et al., 2016). The movement toward development of smart manufacturing Industry 4.0
systems starts with incorporating IIoT for establishing smart connections across the factory
and vertical integration of machines, physical assets, databases, processes and control 929
systems, as well as the people who are interacting with them (Da Xu et al., 2014; Gilchrist,
2016). This includes the application of smart intra-factory logistics via autonomous mobile
units and different types of production or process controllers (e.g. SCADA, PLC or DCS) to
acquire machine and process level data (Colombo et al., 2014). These types of control
systems that communicate with each other and with a central control system can be further
developed to take the form of a manufacturing execution system (MES). At one layer above
that, the integration of MES and intelligent enterprise resource planning (ERP) facilitates
the complete information transparency as well as connectivity to business data in real-time
(Wang, Gunasekaran, Ngai and Papadopoulos, 2016). The intelligent ERP, coupled with
data mining procedures, would enable digital twin models that provide a digital
representation of the past and current behavior of a single object up to the entire
manufacturing system, the feature that can significantly contribute to the development of
smart factory (Coronado et al., 2018).
The fourth industrial revolution has severely affected the supply chain interactions,
which is mainly due to the exponential growth of sensible data and the widespread of
digitalized processes (Wu et al., 2016; Zhong et al., 2016). With the emergence of mass-
personalization business model, the production models of future will move toward a highly
specialized and highly customized production schemes that require the reconfiguration and
integration of the entire supply network for a more dynamic way of manufacturing (Tien,
2011). As Industry 4.0 spreads more across the value chain, supply partners even need to
integrate the digital twins of their operations with the aim of creating digital supply network
(Parrott and Warshaw, 2017), which significantly relies on IT alignment across value chain
(Ghobakhloo and Tang, 2015). To accomplish this goal, business partners need to first
develop the supply chain application system integration to achieve real-time communication
across the supply chain (Ghobakhloo et al., 2014). They further need to benefit from WoT
and blockchain technologies to remove information silos, and ensure data consistency,
interoperability and security across different platforms within the entire supply chain while
protecting intellectual property of each partner (Korpela et al., 2017; Raggett, 2016;
Underwood, 2016). By doing so, members of a supply network can integrate the flow of
information, materials, activities, finances and even knowledge (managerial and
manufacturing), and move toward the establishment of smart (digital) supply chain that
supports Industry 4.0 transition (Rai et al., 2006; Vanpoucke et al., 2017).
The development of smart manufacturing system and smart supply chain management,
collectively, allows the integration of data from operations and business systems, as well as
from supply partners and customers sides. This level of integration, in turn, offers a holistic
view of upstream and downstream supply chain processes, generating additional value
within the entire supply network.

5. Concluding remarks
Scholars believe that the academic literature lacks a clear and common definition of the
Industry 4.0, as its concept is still quite fuzzy, among both researchers and practitioners
(Hofmann and Rüsch, 2017). To address this concern, this paper conducted a state-of-the-art
review of the ongoing research on Industry 4.0 phenomenon, highlighted its key design
principles and technology trends and offered a strategic roadmap that can serve
JMTM manufacturers as a simple guide for the process of Industry 4.0 transition. Industry 4.0 is no
29,6 longer a hype, as more software, hardware and system developers are glimpsing the
opportunities of Industry 4.0 and launching their products and services in this field. IBM, for
example, has developed the capability-rich IBM® Watson IoT™ platform that enables
manufacturers to implement cognitive manufacturing, adapt to the Industry 4.0 and digitize
their processes. Metal additive manufacturing has also turned into a reality in 2018 given
930 Audi AG, for example, benefits from Selective Laser Melting systems from SLM Solutions
for the metal additive manufacturing of components for their exclusive automobiles.
Augmented and virtual reality application are already in use in a wide range of industries,
and according to International Data Corporation the value of augmented and virtual reality
spending is poised to double every year through 2021 (IDC, 2017). When it comes to the
fourth industrial revolution, the big question is how a manufacturer makes its transition
from where they are now to where they want to be through the digitization processes. The
answer would be through a comprehensive strategic roadmap that carefully identifies and
plans every single steps they need to take, as well as the timeline, and the costs and benefits
associated. The strategic roadmap presented in this study is merely a holistic view of
common steps that contemporary manufacturers need to undertake in their quest for
transitioning toward Industry 4.0. It is obvious that there is no one-size-fits-all strategy that
suits all businesses or industries, meaning the Industry 4.0 roadmap for each company is
idiosyncratic, and should be devised based on company’s core competencies, motivations,
capabilities, intent, goals, priorities and budgets.
It is believed that the benefits of transitioning into Industry 4.0 could outweigh the
associated costs, particularly for world-class manufactures that have the necessary
experience and manpower to create and implement underlying technology trends, and have
adequate support from stakeholders to invest heavily in new technologies. Yet, it cannot be
ignored that there are many challenges associated with the fourth industrial revolution,
examples of which are financial capability, data security issues, maintaining the integrity of
the production process, IT maturity and knowledge competencies. The promise of Industry
4.0 is real, but for companies that are mature enough to embrace it, and have devised a
comprehensive transition strategy. Many companies leapfrogging into the Industry 4.0
technologies tend to ignore Pareto’s well-known 80/20 rule that addressing the behavioral
root causes of process problems is what that offers the lion’s share of performance
improvement, not simply investing in the digitization of processes. In addition, not all
manufacturers are ready for the full digital transformation. In reality, majority of
manufacturers, smaller ones in particular, are competent enough to only digitize certain
areas of their operations, such as digitizing their warehousing or supply chain interactions.
Although transitioning toward Industry 4.0 requires the removal of functional silos,
openness to change, supportive culture, supply chain integration, and data transparency
across the entire value chain, unfortunately, it is difficult, rather impossible, for a network of
typical manufactures to achieve them in a short run. Strategic and operations management
scholars are, therefore, recommended to investigate how typical manufacturers can achieve
organizational, operational, technical and legal readiness in preparation for the Industry 4.0.
Another interesting avenue for future research would be to develop a comprehensive
strategic roadmap of Industry 4.0 transition for small- and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs). Large companies that produce in high volumes will realize considerable efficiency
gains from the Industry 4.0 and the underlying digitization, but SMEs are generally
characterized by resource limitation, higher levels of flexibility, higher degree of
specialization and inclination toward niche markets. That being said, the impact of the
fourth industrial revolution on manufacturing SMEs can be considered largely positive, if
the authorities, governmental agencies and international associations, for example, assists
smaller firms with the process of digital transformation.
5.1 Limitation Strategic
The exclusion criteria used while performing the review of existing literature resulted in the roadmap
removal of non-English documents. Thus, many of the existing research published in other toward
languages, German language in particular, have been ignored in this study. In addition, the
strategic roadmap presented in this study has been developed based on the existing research Industry 4.0
and empirical evidence in the context of strategic management, marketing, supply chain
management, manufacturing technology management and IT resource management. Yet, this 931
strategic roadmap is merely a holistic view of common steps that contemporary manufacturers
need to undertake in their quest for Industry 4.0 transition, and its generalizability to different
manufacturing settings, and service industry in particular, is expected to be limited.

References
Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M. and Ayyash, M. (2015), “Internet of things: a
survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications”, IEEE Communications Surveys &
Tutorials, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 2347-2376.
Anderl, R. (2014), “Industrie 4.0-advanced engineering of smart products and smart production”, paper
presented at the 19th International Seminar on High Technology, Technological Innovations in
the Product Development, Piracicaba, October 9, pp. 1-14.
Anderl, R., Anokhin, O. and Arndt, A. (2018), “Efficient Factory 4.0 Darmstadt-Industrie 4.0
implementation for midsize industry”, in Sendler, U. (Ed.), The Internet of Things, Springer,
Heidelberg, pp. 117-131.
Atzori, L., Iera, A. and Morabito, G. (2010), “The internet of things: a survey”, Computer Networks,
Vol. 54 No. 15, pp. 2787-2805.
Babiceanu, R.F. and Seker, R. (2016), “Big Data and virtualization for manufacturing cyber-physical
systems: a survey of the current status and future outlook”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 81 No. 1,
pp. 128-137.
Becker, T., Burghart, C., Nazemi, K., Ndjiki-Nya, P., Riegel, T., Schäfer, R. and Wissmann, J. (2014),
“Core technologies for the internet of services”, in Wahlster, W., Grallert, H.-J., Wess, S.,
Friedrich, H. and Widenka, T. (Eds), Towards the Internet of Services: The THESEUS Research
Program, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 59-88.
Bettiol, M., Capestro, M. and Di Maria, E. (2018), “Industry 4.0: the strategic role of marketing”,
available at: www.economia.unipd.it/sites/economia.unipd.it/files/20170213.pdf (accessed
April 19, 2018).
Chen, B., Wan, J., Shu, L., Li, P., Mukherjee, M. and Yin, B. (2018), “Smart factory of Industry 4.0: key
technologies, application case, and challenges”, IEEE Access, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 6505-6519.
Choi, J. (2017), “The future of jobs and the fourth industrial revolution: business as usual for unusual
business”, World Bank, available at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/future-jobs-and-fourth-
industrial-revolution-business-usual-unusual-business (accessed February 16, 2018).
Colombo, A.W., Bangemann, T., Karnouskos, S., Delsing, J., Stluka, P., Harrison, R., Jammes, F. and
Lastra, J.L. (2014), Industrial Cloud-Based Cyber-Physical Systems, Springer, Heidelberg.
Conti, M., Passarella, A. and Das, S.K. (2017), “The Internet of People (IoP): a new wave in pervasive
mobile computing”, Pervasive and Mobile Computing, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Coronado, P.D.U., Lynn, R., Louhichi, W., Parto, M., Wescoat, E. and Kurfess, T. (2018), “Part data
integration in the shop floor digital twin: mobile and cloud technologies to enable a
manufacturing execution system”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems ( forthcoming),
doi: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.02.002.
Da Xu, L., He, W. and Li, S. (2014), “Internet of things in industries: A survey”, IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Informatics, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 2233-2243.
Devezas, T. and Sarygulov, A. (2017), Industry 4.0: Entrepreneurship and Structural Change in the
New Digital Landscape, Springer, Heidelberg.
JMTM Diederik, V., Kristina, D., Jorn, S.K.F. and Fabian, N. (2014), “Smart factories”, European Commission,
29,6 available at: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13395/attachments/3/translations/en/
renditions/native (accessed February 17, 2018).
Doshi, A., Smith, R.T., Thomas, B.H. and Bouras, C. (2017), “Use of projector based augmented reality
to improve manual spot-welding precision and accuracy for automotive manufacturing”, The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 89 Nos 5-8, pp. 1279-1293.
932 Elia, V., Gnoni, M.G. and Lanzilotto, A. (2016), “Evaluating the application of augmented reality devices
in manufacturing from a process point of view: an AHP based model”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 187-197.
Esmaeilian, B., Behdad, S. and Wang, B. (2016), “The evolution and future of manufacturing: a review”,
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 79-100.
Fan, W., Chen, Z., Xiong, Z. and Chen, H. (2012), “The internet of data: a new idea to extend the IOT in
the digital world”, Frontiers of Computer Science, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 660-667.
Galpin, T.J. and Herndon, M. (2014), The Complete Guide to Mergers and Acquisitions: Process Tools to
Support M&A Integration at Every Level, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.
Ghobakhloo, M. and Azar, A. (2018), “Business excellence via advanced manufacturing technology and
lean-agile manufacturing”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 2-24.
Ghobakhloo, M. and Tang, S.H. (2015), “The business value of information system-enabled
e-collaboration capabilities”, International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 22-56.
Ghobakhloo, M., Tang, S.H., Sabouri, M.S. and Zulkifli, N. (2014), “The impact of information system-
enabled supply chain process integration on business performance: a resource-based analysis”,
International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1075-1113.
Gilchrist, A. (2016), Industry 4.0: The Industrial Internet of Things, Springer, Heidelberg.
He, W. and Xu, L. (2015), “A state-of-the-art survey of cloud manufacturing”, International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 239-250.
Hecklau, F., Galeitzke, M., Flachs, S. and Kohl, H. (2016), “Holistic approach for human resource
management in Industry 4.0”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Hermann, M., Pentek, T. and Otto, B. (2016), “Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios”, paper
presented at the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE,
Koloa, HI, New York City, NY, January, pp. 3928-3937.
Hofmann, E. and Rüsch, M. (2017), “Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as future prospects on
logistics”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Hu, H., Wen, Y., Chua, T.-S. and Li, X. (2014), “Toward scalable systems for big data analytics: a
technology tutorial”, IEEE Access, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 652-687.
IBM (2018), “360 degree view of customer”, available at: www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?
subtype=RG&infotype=PM&htmlfid=REO12346USEN&attachment=REO12346USEN.PDF
(accessed May 14, 2018).
IDC (2017), “Worldwide spending on augmented and virtual reality expected to double or more every
year through 2021”, IDC, available at: www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42959717
(accessed February 23, 2018).
IFR (2017), “Executive summary world robotics 2017 industrial robots”, available at: https://ifr.org/
downloads/press/Executive_Summary_WR_2017_Industrial_Robots.pdf (accessed
February 20, 2018).
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B., Werner, F. and Ivanova, M. (2016), “A dynamic model and an
algorithm for short-term supply chain scheduling in the smart factory Industry 4.0”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 386-402.
Jabbour, D.S., Lopes, A.B., Jabbour, C.J.C., Foropon, C. and Godinho Filho, M. (2018a), “When titans meet—
can Industry 4.0 revolutionise the environmentally-sustainable manufacturing wave? The role of
critical success factors”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 18-25.
Jabbour, D.S.A.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., Godinho Filho, M. and Roubaud, D. (2018b), “Industry 4.0 and the Strategic
circular economy: a proposed research agenda and original roadmap for sustainable roadmap
operations”, Annals of Operations Research, pp. 1-14 ( forthcoming).
toward
Janev, V. and Vraneš, S. (2011), “Applicability assessment of semantic web technologies”, Information
Processing & Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 507-517. Industry 4.0
Jeschke, S., Brecher, C., Meisen, T., Özdemir, D. and Eschert, T. (2017), “Industrial internet of things and
cyber manufacturing systems”, in Jeschke, S., Brecher, C., Song, H. and Rawat, D.B. (Eds), 933
Industrial Internet of Things, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 3-19.
Jiang, P., Ding, K. and Leng, J. (2016), “Towards a cyber-physical-social-connected and service-oriented
manufacturing paradigm: social manufacturing”, Manufacturing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 15-21.
Kagermann, H. (2015), “Change through digitization-value creation in the age of Industry 4.0”, in
Albach, H., Meffert, H., Pinkwart, A. and Reichwald, R. (Eds), Management of Permanent
Change, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 23-45.
Kang, H.S., Lee, J.Y., Choi, S., Kim, H., Park, J.H., Son, J.Y., Kim, B.H. and Do Noh, S. (2016), “Smart
manufacturing: Past research, present findings, and future directions”, International Journal of
Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 111-128.
Khan, W.A., Raouf, A. and Cheng, K. (2011), “Augmented reality for manufacturing”, in Khan, W.A.,
Raouf, A. and Cheng, K. (Eds), Virtual Manufacturing, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 1-56.
Kim, H.M. and Laskowski, M. (2018), “Toward an ontology-driven blockchain design for supply-chain
provenance”, Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 18-27.
Kjellsson, J., Vallestad, A.E., Steigmann, R. and Dzung, D. (2009), “Integration of a wireless I/O interface
for PROFIBUS and PROFINET for factory automation”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 4279-4287.
Kocian, J., Tutsch, M., Ozana, S. and Koziorek, J. (2012), “Application of modeling and simulation
techniques for technology units in industrial control”, in Sambath, S. and Zhu, E. (Eds), Frontiers
in Computer Education, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 491-499.
Korpela, K., Hallikas, J. and Dahlberg, T. (2017), “Digital supply chain transformation toward
blockchain integration”, paper presented at the proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international
conference on system sciences, Waikoloa, HI, January, pp. 4182-4191.
Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.-G., Feld, T. and Hoffmann, M. (2014), “Industry 4.0”, Business &
Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 239-242.
LaValle, S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., Hopkins, M.S. and Kruschwitz, N. (2011), “Big data, analytics and
the path from insights to value”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 21-32.
Lee, J., Bagheri, B. and Kao, H.-A. (2015), “A cyber-physical systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based
manufacturing systems”, Manufacturing Letters, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 18-23.
Lee, J.H., Phaal, R. and Lee, S.-H. (2013), “An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for smart
city development”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 286-306.
Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., Rajahonka, M. and Siuruainen, R. (2012), “Towards IOT ecosystems and
business models”, in Andreev, S., Balandin, S. and Koucheryavy, Y. (Eds), Internet of Things,
Smart Spaces, and Next Generation Networking, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 15-26.
Leyh, C., Schäffer, T., Bley, K. and Forstenhäusler, S. (2016), “Assessing the IT and Software
landscapes of Industry 4.0-enterprises: the maturity model SIMMI 4.0”, in Ziemba, E. (Ed.),
Information Technology for Management: New Ideas and Real Solutions, Springer, Heidelberg,
pp. 103-119.
Li, L. (2018), “China’s manufacturing locus in 2025: with a comparison of ‘made-in-China 2025’ and
‘Industry 4.0’ ”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change ( forthcoming), doi: 10.1016/j.
techfore.2017.05.028.
Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E.d.F.R. and Ramos, L.F.P. (2017), “Past, present and future of Industry
4.0-a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 3609-3629.
JMTM Lu, Y. (2017), “Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications and open research issues”, Journal of
29,6 Industrial Information Integration, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Mehnen, J., He, H., Tedeschi, S. and Tapoglou, N. (2017), “Practical security aspects of the internet of
things”, in Thames, L. and Schaefer, D. (Eds), Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0, Springer,
Heidelberg, pp. 225-242.
Miranda, J., Mäkitalo, N., Garcia-Alonso, J., Berrocal, J., Mikkonen, T., Canal, C. and Murillo, J.M. (2015), “From
934 the internet of things to the internet of people”, IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 40-47.
Moeuf, A., Pellerin, R., Lamouri, S., Tamayo-Giraldo, S. and Barbaray, R. (2018), “The industrial
management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 1118-1136.
Moreno, A., Velez, G., Ardanza, A., Barandiaran, I., de Infante, Á.R. and Chopitea, R. (2017),
“Virtualisation process of a sheet metal punching machine within the Industry 4.0 vision”,
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 365-373.
Mosterman, P.J. and Zander, J. (2016), “Industry 4.0 as a cyber-physical system study”, Software &
Systems Modeling, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Motta, G., You, L., Sacco, D., Ma, T. and Miceli, G. (2014), “Mobility service systems: Guidelines for a possible
paradigm and a case study”, paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Service
Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, Qingdao, October, IEEE, New York City, NY, pp. 48-53.
MPDV (2015), “Industry 4.0: MES supports decentralization”, available at: www.mpdv.com/uploads/
tx_news/NEWS_International_2015_web.pdf (accessed February 10, 2018).
Müller, J.M., Kiel, D. and Voigt, K.-I. (2018), “What drives the implementation of Industry 4.0? The role of
opportunities and challenges in the context of sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M. and Espadanal, M. (2014), “Assessing the determinants of cloud computing
adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors”, Information & Management,
Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 497-510.
Ooi, K.-B., Lee, V.-H., Tan, G.W.-H., Hew, T.-S. and Hew, J.-J. (2018), “Cloud computing in manufacturing:
the next industrial revolution in Malaysia?”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 93 No. 1,
pp. 376-394.
Parrott, A. and Warshaw, L. (2017), Industry 4.0 and the Digital Twin, Deloitte University Press,
available at: www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/cip/deloitte-cn-cip-
industry-4-0-digital-twin-technology-en-171215.pdf (accessed April 22, 2018).
Perales, D.P., Valero, F.A. and García, A.B. (2018), “Industry 4.0: a classification scheme”, in Viles, E.,
Ormazábal, M. and Lleó, A. (Eds), Closing the Gap Between Practice and Research in Industrial
Engineering, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 343-350.
Posada, J., Toro, C., Barandiaran, I., Oyarzun, D., Stricker, D., de Amicis, R., Pinto, E.B., Eisert, P.,
Döllner, J. and Vallarino, I. (2015), “Visual computing as a key enabling technology for industrie
4.0 and industrial internet”, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 26-40.
Qi, Q. and Tao, F. (2018), “Digital twin and big data towards smart manufacturing and Industry 4.0: 360
degree comparison”, IEEE Access, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3585-3593.
Raggett, D. (2016), “The web of things: bridging the IoT silos”, available at: www.w3.org/2016/05/26-
dsr-bridging-the-silos.pdf (accessed April 21, 2018).
Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R. and Seth, N. (2006), “Firm performance impacts of digitally-enabled supply
chain integration capabilities”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 225-246.
Roblek, V., Meško, M. and Krapež, A. (2016), “A complex view of Industry 4.0”, SAGE Open, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Rüßmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P. and Harnisch, M. (2015),
“Industry 4.0: the future of productivity and growth in manufacturing industries”, Boston
Consulting Group, available at: www.bcg.com/publications/2015/engineered_products_project_
business_industry_4_future_productivity_growth_manufacturing_industries.aspx (accessed
February 5, 2018).
Salkin, C., Oner, M., Ustundag, A. and Cevikcan, E. (2018), “A conceptual framework for Industry 4.0”, Strategic
in Ustundag, A. and Cevikcan, E. (Eds), Industry 4.0: Managing the Digital Transformation, roadmap
Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 3-23.
toward
Santos, C., Mehrsai, A., Barros, A., Araújo, M. and Ares, E. (2017), “Towards Industry 4.0: an overview
of European strategic roadmaps”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 972-979. Industry 4.0
Sarvari, P.A., Ustundag, A., Cevikcan, E., Kaya, I. and Cebi, S. (2018), “Technology roadmap for
Industry 4.0”, in Ustundag, A. and Cevikcan, E. (Eds), Industry 4.0: Managing the Digital 935
Transformation, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 95-103.
Satoglu, S., Ustundag, A., Cevikcan, E. and Durmusoglu, M.B. (2018), “Lean production systems for
Industry 4.0”, in Ustundag, A. and Cevikcan, E. (Eds), Industry 4.0: Managing the Digital
Transformation, Springer, Heidelberg.
Savtschenko, M., Schulte, F. and Voß, S. (2017), “IT governance for cyber-physical systems: the case of
Industry 4.0.paper presented at the International Conference of Design, User Experience, and
Usability, Springer, Heidelberg, Vancouver, BC, July.
Schleich, B., Anwer, N., Mathieu, L. and Wartzack, S. (2017), “Shaping the digital twin for design and
production engineering”, CIRP Annals, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 141-144.
Schmidt, R., Möhring, M., Härting, R.-C., Reichstein, C., Neumaier, P. and Jozinović, P. (2015), “Industry
4.0-potentials for creating smart products: empirical research results”, paper presented at BIS
18th International Conference on Business Information Systems, Poznań, Springer International
Publishing, June.
Schumacher, A., Erol, S. and Sihn, W. (2016), “A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness
and maturity of manufacturing enterprises”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 161-166.
Shamim, S., Cang, S., Yu, H. and Li, Y. (2016), “Management approaches for Industry 4.0: a human
resource management perspective”, paper presented at the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary
Computation, Vancouver, IEEE, New York City, NY, July, pp. 5309-5316.
Sikorski, J.J., Haughton, J. and Kraft, M. (2017), “Blockchain technology in the chemical industry:
machine-to-machine electricity market”, Applied Energy, Vol. 195 No. 1, pp. 234-246.
Stock, T. and Seliger, G. (2016), “Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in Industry 4.0”, Procedia
CIRP, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 536-541.
Strange, R. and Zucchella, A. (2017), “Industry 4.0, global value chains and international business”,
Multinational Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 174-184.
Tao, F. and Qi, Q. (2017), “New IT driven service-oriented smart manufacturing: framework and
characteristics”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems ( forthcoming).
doi:10.1109/TSMC.2017.2723764.
Tao, F., Cheng, J., Qi, Q., Zhang, M., Zhang, H. and Sui, F. (2018), “Digital twin-driven product design,
manufacturing and service with big data”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 94 Nos 9-12, pp. 3563-3576.
Thames, L. and Schaefer, D. (2017), “Industry 4.0: an overview of key benefits, technologies, and
challenges”, in Thames, L. and Schaefer, D. (Eds), Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0, Springer,
Heidelberg, pp. 1-33.
Theorin, A., Bengtsson, K., Provost, J., Lieder, M., Johnsson, C., Lundholm, T. and Lennartson, B. (2017),
“An event-driven manufacturing information system architecture for Industry 4.0”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1297-1311.
Thuluva, A.S., Anicic, D. and Rudolph, S. (2017), “Semantic web of things for Industry 4.0.”, paper
presented at the Doctoral Consortium, Challenge, Industry Track, Tutorials and Posters,
London, July 11-15.
Tien, J.M. (2011), “Manufacturing and services: from mass production to mass customization”, Journal
of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 129-154.
Underwood, S. (2016), “Blockchain beyond Bitcoin”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 59 No. 11,
pp. 15-17.
JMTM Ustundag, A. and Cevikcan, E. (2017), Industry 4.0: Managing the Digital Transformation, Springer,
29,6 Heidelberg.
Vanpoucke, E., Vereecke, A. and Muylle, S. (2017), “Leveraging the impact of supply chain integration
through information technology”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 510-530.
Vogel-Heuser, B. and Hess, D. (2016), “Guest editorial Industry 4.0–prerequisites and visions”, IEEE
Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 411-413.
936
Wan, J., Tang, S., Shu, Z., Li, D., Wang, S., Imran, M. and Vasilakos, A.V. (2016), “Software-defined
industrial internet of things in the context of Industry 4.0”, IEEE Sensors Journal, Vol. 16 No. 20,
pp. 7373-7380.
Wang, G., Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W. and Papadopoulos, T. (2016), “Big data analytics in logistics
and supply chain management: certain investigations for research and applications”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 176 No. 1, pp. 98-110.
Wang, S., Wan, J., Zhang, D., Li, D. and Zhang, C. (2016), “Towards smart factory for Industry 4.0: a
self-organized multi-agent system with big data based feedback and coordination”, Computer
Networks, Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 158-168.
Wang, Y., Ma, H.-S., Yang, J.-H. and Wang, K.-S. (2017), “Industry 4.0: a way from mass customization
to mass personalization production”, Advances in Manufacturing, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 311-320.
Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002), “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature
review”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. xiii-xxiii.
Wollschlaeger, M., Sauter, T. and Jasperneite, J. (2017), “The future of industrial communication:
Automation networks in the era of the internet of things and Industry 4.0”, IEEE Industrial
Electronics Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 17-27.
Wu, L., Yue, X., Jin, A. and Yen, D.C. (2016), “Smart supply chain management: a review and
implications for future research”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 395-417.
Wu, S.P.-J., Straub, D.W. and Liang, T.-P. (2015), “How information technology governance
mechanisms and strategic alignment influence organizational performance: insights from a
matched survey of business and IT managers”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 497-518.
Yang, C., Lan, S., Shen, W., Huang, G.Q., Wang, X. and Lin, T. (2017), “Towards product customization
and personalization in IoT-enabled cloud manufacturing”, Cluster Computing, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 1717-1730.
Yew, A., Ong, S. and Nee, A. (2016), “Towards a Griddable distributed manufacturing system with
augmented reality interfaces”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 43-55.
Zhang, J., Ding, G., Zou, Y., Qin, S. and Fu, J. (2017), “Review of job shop scheduling research and its new
perspectives under Industry 4.0”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing ( forthcoming), pp. 1-22.
Zhong, R.Y., Newman, S.T., Huang, G.Q. and Lan, S. (2016), “Big Data for supply chain management in
the service and manufacturing sectors: challenges, opportunities, and future perspectives”,
Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 572-591.

Corresponding author
Morteza Ghobakhloo can be contacted at: morteza_ghobakhloo@yahoo.com

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