International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Technologies and applications of Industry 4.0:

insights from network analytics

Bongsug (Kevin) Chae & David Olson

To cite this article: Bongsug (Kevin) Chae & David Olson (2021): Technologies and applications
of Industry 4.0: insights from network analytics, International Journal of Production Research, DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2021.1931524

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1931524

Published online: 31 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 180

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1931524

Technologies and applications of Industry 4.0: insights from network analytics

Bongsug (Kevin) Chaea and David Olsonb
a College of Business Administration, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA; b Department of Supply Chain Management & Analytics,
University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper examines the interactions between Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technology, to include artificial intel- Received 20 February 2021
ligence and the Internet of Things, and industry sectors such as manufacturing, healthcare, delivery Accepted 8 May 2021
of consumer goods, and finance. The landscape of I4.0 technologies is reviewed. Interactions are KEYWORDS
studied through complex network analysis. Industry data from CrunchBase is used to study the appli- Industry 4.0; complex
cation of I4.0 technology in different industries. The network of 543 industry categories as nodes had network analysis;
1141 relationships. There were 26 key I4.0 nodes that emerged as network hubs. The relative use of emergence;
I4.0 technology of companies was identified and interconnections between them were measured by interconnectedness; big
network nodes and edges. Temporal analysis was obtained by dividing companies by date of forma- data; analytics
tion. Some of the I4.0 technologies began to appear around 2000. Younger firms were found to have
integrated significantly more I4.0 technologies, as expected. The research provides a review of I4.0
technologies by industry that can be used by management to see what competition is doing, and to
generate ideas for maintaining or gaining competitive advantage.

1. Introduction
Industry 4.0 (I4.0) represents a significant digital trans-
formation in firms and industries. When initially coined
and officially adopted as a German strategic initiative
(Xu, Xu, and Li 2018), the concept embraced a digital
strategy for manufacturing. Today I4.0 is not limited to
the manufacturing sector, but is also applied to a variety
of other industry sectors (Dalenogare et al. 2018; Culot
et al. 2020). In addition, other similar concepts have been
developed in different countries and regions of the world
to use such digital technologies as artificial intelligence
(AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and big data analytics
for competitive strategic advantage (Ardolino et al. 2018;
Gawankar, Gunasekaran, and Kamble 2020). In response,
a growing number of studies have offered a review of
the concept and relevant technologies and their implica-
tions. Many of these studies have placed a focus on digital
technologies as enablers for transforming businesses and
industries (Lu 2017; Dalenogare et al. 2018; Ghobakhloo
2018; Xu, Xu, and Li 2018; Yin, Stecke, and Li 2018;
Frank, Dalenogare, and Ayala 2019a; Ivanov, Dolgui, and
Sokolov 2019; Hahn 2020; Oztemel and Gursev 2020;
Zheng et al. 2020).
In the era of I4.0, there are two types of digital trans-
formation found in industry. First, companies in manu-
facturing and other industry sectors have taken digital
strategies and adopted digital technologies for produc-
tion and planning, logistics, and customer services. This
type of digital transformation has received attention in
the literature (Moeuf et al. 2018; Frank et al. 2019b;
Zheng et al. 2020). Second, increasing economic activities
are taking place with digital technologies and infrastruc-
tures. Industry data show a trend of many companies cre-
ating new products and services in such areas as artificial
intelligence and big data and there have been increasing
investment flows into such economic activities (Green-
man 2019; Rocha, Mamédio, and Quandt 2019). Over-
all, individual companies and various industry sectors
are experiencing digital transformations, and emerging
digital technologies, such as AI, IoT, 3D Printing and
Blockchain are the keys to enabling or implementing the
I4.0 concept in many industries.
These I4.0 technologies do not exist in a vacuum
(Culot et al. 2020). They are interacting not only with
each other (e.g. integration of IoT and big data), but
also with other industry sectors such as manufacturing,
healthcare, consumer goods and finance. Also, differ-
ent I4.0 technologies such as IoT, big data analytics and
cloud technology are integrated for large-scale applica-
tions (Zheng et al. 2020). However, there is a lack of
understanding about such interactions in practice. The
goal of this paper is to study the relationships between

CONTACT Bongsug (Kevin) Chae bchae@ksu.edu

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 B. CHAE AND D. OLSON
implementations of key technologies of I4.0 and various
industry sectors to provide managers with a view of what
is being done, thus offering opportunities to generate
applications to gain or maintain competitive advantage.
The research focuses on how I4.0 technologies interact
with each other and with different industries. Specifically,
the research seeks to answer two questions:
• What is the landscape of I4.0 technologies?
• How do I4.0 technologies interact with each other and
with other industry sectors?
The landscape of I4.0 technologies here refers to
the relationship between those technologies and various
industries as reported in the database analyzed. Litera-
ture reviews and surveys have been popular for devel-
oping insights about the roles and impacts of I4.0 tech-
nologies (e.g. Ivanov et al. 2020; Zheng et al. 2020).
This research attempts to complement previous stud-
ies by developing insights about I4.0 technologies and
applications through adoption of the complex network
perspective (Choi, Dooley, and Rungtusanatham 2001;
Surana et al. 2005). Two key concepts from this perspec-
tive are interdependence and emergence. Elements exist
in a complex network or system and they are intercon-
nected to each other. Such interaction between elements
leads to the emergence of a network of the elements. This
perspective is suitable for understanding the landscape
and interactions of the key technologies in the contexts
of I4.0.
This conceptual perspective is studied using research
methodologies such as network analytics (Strogatz
2001; Pathak et al. 2007; Fortunato 2010; Kim et al.
2011) in which elements (or I4.0 technologies) and
their interaction are studied as nodes and edges in
a complex network or ecosystem. This research uses
industry data from CrunchBase (Dalle, Besten, and
Menon 2017). The findings offer a glimpse into the
ecosystem of I4.0 technologies and their applications
in different industries. Specifically, this research helps
explain the popularity of different I4.0 technologies
and their interconnectedness and introduces network
analytics as a promising computational method for
researching I4.0.
2. I4.0 enabling technologies
While there are diverse views of the I4.0 concept, many
studies indicate that emerging digital technologies are
enabling or implementing the concepts and visions of
I4.0. For example, Dalenogare et al. (2018) noted that I4.0
was pointing initially to the growing digitisation of busi-
ness operations in manufacturing but, later, the concept
was related closely to the increasing diffusion of emerg-
ing technologies and solutions, such as big data and IoT,
across different industries. Similarly, Moeuf et al. (2018)
remarked that recent advances in digital technologies and
relevant methods are key for implementing the I4.0 con-
cept and even small-to-medium sized businesses (SMEs)
are adopting such technologies for cost savings and com-
petitive advantages. Zheng et al. (2020) identified sev-
eral digital technologies enabling I4.0 in manufacturing
contexts and explained how such technologies interact
with different manufacturing business processes includ-
ing new product development, supply chain planning and
quality management. In this line, several digital tech-
nologies have been discussed as I4.0 technologies in the
literature (Table 1).
Artificial intelligence (AI). Among those technologies
in Table 1, AI is clearly a leading enabler of the I4.0
concept. The current wave of AI started in the mid-
2000s as some major technical breakthroughs to include
deep neural networks (e.g. Hinton, Osindero, and Teh
2006) emerged from AI research and practice (Lee 2018).
Many believe that AI likely leads to disruptive inno-
vation in business with various implications. New gen-
erations of machine learning (ML) algorithms trained
with big data on scalable hardware infrastructure have
led to promising outcomes in industry settings, fueled
new entrepreneurial efforts in intelligent service offer-
ings (Shams 2018; Garbuio and Lin 2019), and provided
opportunities for smart manufacturing and logistics sys-
tems (Büchi, Cugno, and Castagnoli 2020; Chien et al.
2020).
Internet of things (IoT). IoT’s vision is connecting all
digital objects (e.g. sensors). Traditional ways of collect-
ing and exchanging data have limitations in terms of
completeness, accuracy, and data latency. Sensor-enabled
devices overcome these issues (Olsen and Tomlin 2020).
It becomes possible to capture complete data about an
environment in real time and such data can be exchanged
for smart services. For this reason, IoT is considered a key
component in implementing cyber-physical systems (Xu,
Xu, and Li 2018).
Blockchain (BC). A key distinction of digital inno-
vation from traditional innovations is that digital tech-
nologies not only change the way businesses operate, but
also generate and capture big data (Kohli and Grover
2008). Traditionally, industries have adopted centralised
database technologies such as enterprise resource plan-
ning (ERP) systems as a solution for data storage and
retrieval. These technologies tend to be expensive to
implement and difficult to customise. Blockchain is a
distributed ledger technology platform that can pro-
vide greater flexibility in data storage and retrieval. In
addition, this emerging technology offers other benefits,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 3

Table 1. Digital technologies implementing I4.0 concept.

Previous studies Digital technologies/methods enabling I4.0 concept
Boston consulting (Brunelli et al. 2017) Advanced robots, Additive manufacturing, Augmented reality, Simulation, Horizontal & vertical system
integration, The Internet of things, Cloud computing, Cybersecurity, Big data analytics
Dalenogare et al. (2018) CAD/CAM, Integrated engineering systems, Digital automation with sensors, Flexible manufacturing lines,
Simulations/analysis of virtual models, Big data, Digital product-service systems, Additive manufacturing,
Fast prototyping or 3d impression, Cloud services for products
Yin, Stecke, and Li (2018) IoT, Big data, Electric vehicles, 3D printing, Cloud computing, Artificial intelligence, Cyber-physical systems
Moeuf et al. (2018) Big data & analytics, Simulation, Autonomous robot, Internet of things, Cyber-physical system, Cloud
computing, Virtual reality, Machine-to-machine communication, Cyber security
Xu, Xu, and Li (2018) IoT, Cloud computing, Blockchain, Industrial information integration and other related technologies
Frank et al. (2019b) IoT, Cloud computing, Big data, Analytics
Olsen and Tomlin (2020) Artificial intelligence, Blockchain, Internet of things, Additive manufacturing, Advanced robotics, Other
technologies (e.g. augmented reality)
Tang and Veelenturf (2019) 3D printing (also known as additive manufacturing), Advanced robotics, Internet of things, Blockchain,
Artificial intelligence, Drones
Culot et al. (2020) Physical-digital interface technologies: Internet of things, Cyber-physical systems, Visualisation technologies
/ Network technologies: Cloud computing, Interoperability and cybersecurity solutions, Blockchain
technology / Data-processing technologies: Simulation and modeling, Machine learning and artificial
intelligence, Big data analytics / Physical/digital process technologies: 3D printing, Advanced robotics, New
materials, Energy management solutions, Technological generics
Zheng et al. (2020) IoT, Big data and analytics, Cloud technology, Cyber-physical systems, Artificial intelligence, Blockchain,
Simulation and modeling, Visualisation technology (augmented and virtual reality), Automation and
industrial robots, Additive manufacturing

including smart contracts and lower transaction costs
(Olsen and Tomlin 2020).
Big data & analytics (BDA). AI, machine learning
(ML), and IoT are interdependent of big data. The power
of AI/ML relies on the availability of data, both struc-
tured and unstructured. Also, data does not create value
until it is processed and analyzed by AI and ML meth-
ods and techniques for data-driven decisions. BDA has
been widely adopted in industries (Tan et al. 2017), which
has led to many types of applications, including supply
chain analytics (Chae, Olson, and Sheu 2014) and quality
analytics (Gupta, Modgil, and Gunasekaran 2020). This
is one of the key technology groups enabling the I4.0
concept.
3D Printing/advanced materials 3D Printing, addi-
tive manufacturing and other names have their origins
in rapid prototyping (Gardan 2016). These new tech-
nologies have provided many benefits, including massive
customisability, for manufacturing and product designs
(Friesike et al. 2019). 3D Printing methods enable manu-
facturing of products having complex structures through
rapid prototypes. Their applications have been found
in a variety of industries, including consumer goods
and mechanical engineering. Advanced materials are
considered important for advancing 3D Printing and
other additive manufacturing techniques (Zhang et al.
2017).
Cloud computing (CC). Cloud computing is a key for
delivering flexible and scalable services over the Inter-
net. The applications of AI, ML, and BDA in indus-
trial settings need scalability and service continuity and
cloud computing is the key to meet such requirements.
Even for SMEs, cloud computing offers ways to realise
the virtualisation of their business operations and the
servitisation of products (Moeuf et al. 2018).
Other technologies. Automation is a key idea in I4.0.
The technology categories mentioned earlier are acceler-
ating automation in industries one way or another. In this
line, robotics is not new but advances in other technolo-
gies such as AI and IoT have enabled the development of
intelligent systems/advanced robotics not only in man-
ufacturing (e.g. smart manufacturing) (Sriskandarajah
and Shetty 2018), but also in transportation, warehous-
ing, and energy management. The drive of automation
also has fueled digital products and services using loca-
tion and tracking technologies such as GPS, sensors, and
other devices. Different types of location-based services
(LBS) and self-tracking tools / paradigms (e.g. Quanti-
fied Self) are flourishing in business (Huang et al. 2018).
Advances in tracking technologies and devices have also
increased the opportunity to link the virtual and physical
worlds (Lampropoulos, Keramopoulos, and Diamantaras
2020). The use of augmented reality (AR) and simi-
lar technologies is also increasing in manufacturing and
other industries such as healthcare for efficiency and
connectivity.
3. I4.0 technologies as a complex network
Networks are used widely in supply chain and production
literature as conceptual perspectives and methodologi-
cal frameworks. The complex network perspective has
been used by many (Choi, Dooley, and Rungtusanatham
2001; Surana et al. 2005; Perera, Bell, and Bliemer 2017).
The core concept in this perspective is that a network or
4 B. CHAE AND D. OLSON
system emerges from the interaction of diverse elements.
These elements (or agents) could be technologies, pro-
duction machines or lines, businesses, or supply chain
networks, among others, in business contexts (e.g. Tuka-
muhabwa et al. 2015). Two key concepts are intercon-
nectedness and emergence. The elements are not stan-
dalone but interconnected in a process leading to the
emergence of a complex network or system. This per-
spective is helpful not only in explaining the diversity of
elements and their interaction but also the network or
system emerging from the interaction. This conceptual
lens has been used along with different research method-
ologies (Pathak et al. 2007), including agent-based mod-
eling and nonlinear models (Surana et al. 2005).
Network analytics is well-suited for the complex net-
work perspective, as the methodology highlights both
elements and the network they comprise using a com-
bination of network visualisation and statistical analy-
sis. As a branch of big data analytics or computational
research, network analytics has aided in the discovery
of hidden patterns (e.g. interaction, emergence) within
big data. The key difference between network analyt-
ics and other analytics methods is the way the research
phenomenon is understood through network structure
involving nodes (elements) and edges (relationships
between those elements) (Pržulj and Malod-Dognin
2016).
Network analytics can be used with both structured
and unstructured data. A variety of data preprocess-
ing methods for constructing networks from text data
have been reported in the literature (Emrouznejad and
Marra 2017; Silva, Ablanedo-Rosas, and Rossetto 2019).
A popular approach codes a document’s keywords as the
nodes of a network that are connected through network
edges. Two types of network projects found in the liter-
ature include unipartite and bipartite networks (Strogatz
2001). For example, industry data, such as CrunchBase,
can be projected in a bipartite network where company
profiles themselves and the words in them are treated
as two distinct kinds of nodes in the network. Further,
this bipartite network can be projected in a unipartite
network where all the words in the company profiles
are treated as nodes, and edges are created for the co-
appearing words in the same company profiles. This latter
approach has been the tradition in semantic networks
(Steyvers and Tenenbaum 2005; Griffiths, Steyvers, and
Tenenbaum 2007).
Semantic network visualisation and metrics, such as
node centrality, are helpful to discover hidden patterns
within data. Modularity or community is commonly
observed in complex networks (Girvan and Newman
2002). The nodes that are densely connected to each
other emerge as a cohesive community over time (Porter,
Onnela, and Mucha 2009). There is a collection of meth-
ods and algorithms for detecting topological communi-
ties from complex networks (Ding 2011). This topology-
based community detection is popular in studying bio-
logical networks, collaboration networks, and physical
infrastructure networks (Newman 2012; Bohlin et al.
2014). The literature offers approaches and algorithms
for detecting communities from complex networks (For-
tunato 2010). Examples include hierarchical clustering,
optimisation methods, and others (Newman 2012). The
Louvain algorithm (Blondel et al. 2008) is popular and
focuses on maximising the measure of modularity, which
increases as more connectivity is found in the identified
communities than in random networks.
4. Research methodology
4.1. Data
The CrunchBase database (crunchbase.com) was the
source of the data for this research. CrunchBase is a
popular database for academic research involving eco-
nomic activities, especially in the startup world (Dalle,
Besten, and Menon 2017). The database is considered
‘the Wikipedia of the high-tech industry’ (Shi, Lee, and
Whinston 2016). It offers several advantages over other
commercial databases providing similar information,
such as including free access for academic research, daily
information updates by investors and other users, and
information reviews and cross-checks with the compa-
nies (Dalle, Besten, and Menon 2017). The database is
widely used in different academic fields, including sus-
tainability research (Tiba, van Rijnsoever, and Hekkert
2021), business success (Gauger, Pfnür, and Strych 2021),
and urban innovation (Bonaventura et al. 2021).
CrunchBase API was used to extract the data of about
560,000 ventures. Several filtering criteria were applied to
select the data relevant to the research questions. The first
step was to identify the companies created in the US since
1970. This filtering resulted in over 150,000 businesses.
The goal was to have as comprehensive a list of U.S.
businesses as possible. The database offers details about
each company, including headquarters, company type,
industry category, and date founded. The companies are
organised using over 40 category groups and over 900 cat-
egories. Category groups are ‘broad subjects that encom-
pass multiple categories’, and categories are ‘more spe-
cific market segments’. For example, a company ‘Waymo’
developing self-driving technology belongs to five indus-
try categories, including Automotive, Autonomous Vehi-
cle, Robotics, Sensor, and Transportation.
The second filtering, based on the list of key tech-
nologies of I4.0 (in Section 2), was used to select five

Figure 1. A network analytics approach for studying I4.0.
category groups, including Artificial Intelligence, Inter-
net Services, Manufacturing, Data Analytics and Hard-
ware. This selection resulted in about 40 categories. For
example, Internet Services as a category group consists
of over 30 different categories and, from that group
six categories (Internet of Things, Cloud Computing,
Cloud Data Services, Cloud Infrastructure, Cloud Man-
agement, and Cloud Storage) were selected. This resulted
in 16,461 businesses for further consideration. Figure 1
shows both data collection and the types of analysis
associated with network analytics used in this study.
Python programming language was the primary tool
for data processing and network analytics. Gephi (Bas-
tian, Heymann, and Jacomy 2009) was also utilised
for network visualisation and community detection
analysis.
4.2. Data preparation
In CrunchBase, each business is represented as a series of
industry categories. For example, the company ‘Segway-
Ninebot’ (segway.com/) belongs to three industry cat-
egories (Electric Vehicle, Manufacturing, Robotics). In
this example, the co-appearance of category names
(Electric Vehicle & Manufacturing, Electric Vehicle &
Robotics, Manufacturing & Robotics) represents the
connection between those three industry categories,
which form a sub-network in a larger network of I4.0
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 5
technologies. Companies in the research belonged to 4.59
industry categories on average. The minimum and maxi-
mum number of industry categories was 3 and 29, respec-
tively. Initially, 680 unique industry categories were iden-
tified from those 16,461 ventures.
Not all associations of industry categories are mean-
ingful for analysis. The association between two indus-
try categories, for example 3D Printing and Account-
ing, is not necessarily statistically significant. Thus, the
data was transformed into a matrix format (16,461
rows × 680 columns) having industry categories coded
as binary (1 or 0). Pairwise correlation analysis was
conducted to select only those associations that are
statistically significant at a 99% confidence level, and
created a matrix (636 rows × 636 columns) of 636
industry categories. Based on the literature review
(Section 2), 26 industry categories,1 which are consid-
ered the key technologies enabling I4.0 concept, were
selected. The final data included 26 technology categories
(or industry categories) and 517 other industry categories
(e.g. manufacturing, transportation, healthcare, finance,
marketing) associated with them at a 99% confidence
level.
4.3. Network analytics
Network analytics is useful to draw the insights about
I4.0 technologies and their association (or interaction)
6 B. CHAE AND D. OLSON
with other industries, as those 16,461 companies’ indus-
try categories are projected into a network with a myriad
of nodes (or industry categories) and edges (or relation-
ships between the industry categories). Complexity is a
hallmark of large networks and community detection
analysis can be useful to identify collections of closely
associated industry categories. Among many approaches
and algorithms (Fortunato 2010), the Louvain algorithm
(Blondel et al. 2008) focuses on maximising the mea-
sure of modularity, which increases as more connectivity
is found in the identified communities than in random
networks. The analysis discovered eight communities of
digital technologies and associated industry categories.
Those 16,461 companies are divided into two groups:
those founded before the year 2000 (1947 businesses) and
since 2000 (14,514 businesses). The goal is to explore any
changes in the network of industry categories over time.
Many of the key technologies have been deployed actively
since the early 2000s (Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen
2010). For example, the waves of data analytics and big
data emerged in 2000s and 2010s, respectively (Mullany
2016). The current wave of AI also started in 2000s along
with technological breakthroughs such as deep learning
(Lee 2018). The rationale is that ‘young’ companies are
more likely to integrate the key I4.0 technologies, such
as Blockchain and Augmented Reality, into their prod-
ucts and services than those companies founded before
2000. The differences in the two networks (before 2000
vs. since 2000) are analyzed through community similar-
ity. Communities are similar where they share common
nodes (Pan et al. 2010). Thus, similarity metrics such as
the Jaccard index can be used to measure the degree of
change in a community (A) between the ‘older’ (founded
before 2000 or t) and the ‘young’ (founded since 2000 or
t + 1).
|At ∩At+1 |
J(At , At+1 ) =
|At ∪At+1 |
|At ∩At+1 |
=
|At | + |At+1 | − |At ∩At+1 |
The similarity coefficient ranges between zero and
one: one means that the node membership of community
A between two groups of companies is the same, suggest-
ing there is no change in the community. However, the
similarity coefficient below one suggests the community-
level changes. In contrast, the distance or dissimilarity
coefficient can be calculated by 1 − J(At , At+1 ).
5. Analysis & results
Table 2 offers a summary of descriptive statistics for the
network. The network consists of 543 nodes (or industry
categories) and 1141 relationships. The modularity score
(0.628) shows that the network is easily disintegrated
into communities and there are 8 communities. This is
a sparse network, as indicated by a low density. The aver-
age distance between nodes is 3.37 and the longest of all
the shortest path lengths is 6.
Figure 2 shows a network view of the key technologies
and their association with different industries. Among
those 543 nodes are 26 key technologies. The node degree
centrality was used to resize the nodes and their labels so
different node sizes represent different degrees in pop-
ularity. Those 26 technologies emerge as hubs in the
network. Each of these technology nodes relates to many
other industry categories. For example, 3D Printing is
connected to CAD, Product Design, Mechanical Engi-
neering, Plastic & Rubber Manufacturing, and Industrial
Design. Through these connections, several subnetworks
(or communities) are formed around those technologies.
5.1. Network community detection and popularity
of I4.0 technologies
Figure 3 reports six of the eight communities discovered
by the Louvain algorithm. Due to space limit, two other
communities, LBS and Quantified Self, are not included
in this figure. The largest community consists of digi-
tal technologies (AI, ML, AR) and industry categories
associated with them.
• The largest community includes 99 industry cate-
gories, which represent 18 percent of the network and
are associated with such digital technologies as AI,
ML, and AR. This shows that AI, ML, and AR are
the two closest technologies in proximity, compared
to other technologies.
• Cloud computing and related technologies (e.g. Cloud
Data Services, Cloud Security) represent the second
largest community including 17.7 percent of the whole
network. This also indicates that cloud technologies,
cyber security and network issues are tightly coupled
in practice.
• Robotics, 3D Printing, 3D Technology, Industrial
Automation, Intelligence Systems, and Advanced
Materials are part of a large community, represent-
ing 17 percent of the network. This community also
includes industry categories such as manufacturing.
Table 2. Summary statistics of the network.
Avg.
# of path
Nodes Edges Modularity Communities Density length Diameter
543 1141 0.628 8 0.008 3.37 6

Figure 2. A network view of I4.0 technologies & their associations.
• LBS is clustered with 76 other nodes, including Indoor
Positioning, Mobile Apps, iOS, and Mapping Ser-
vices. This community represents 13 percent of the
network.
• Another large community, 13 percent of the net-
work, is represented by key technologies such as
Analytics, Data Mining, Data Visualisation, and Big
Data.
• IoT is shown to be tightly connected with such indus-
try sectors as smart building, smart cities, telecom, and
mobile devices. This community represents 12 percent
of the nodes in the whole network.
• There is also a community associated with Blockchain.
This community includes several financial sectors
such as Financial Services, Fin Tech, and Financial
Exchanges, as well as related technologies (e.g. cryp-
tocurrency, Ethereum, Bitcoin).
The network representation of I4.0 technologies and
other industry categories as nodes enables analysis of
their popularity using degree centrality. Figure 4 shows
that IoT has the greatest number of connections with 91
industry categories, which represents 7.6 percent of all
the nodes in the network. What follows IoT includes ML
(78 categories), AI (73 categories), Blockchain (66 cate-
gories), AR (63 categories), and Cloud Computing (57
categories) among others. Among I4.0 technologies with
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7
the lowest degree of centrality are Advanced Materials (18
categories), Intelligence Systems (33 categories), and 3D
Technology (35 categories).
5.2. Interconnectedness of I4.0 technologies
The next analysis highlights the interconnectedness of
I4.0 technologies. The analysis was conducted at two
levels: (1) the interaction among the key enabling tech-
nologies and, (2) the interaction of the key enabling
technologies with other industry categories.
First, Figure 5 reveals how the key technologies inter-
act with each other. Quantified self is not shown in
the figure since it has no significant association with
any other I4.0 technologies. Cloud-related technolo-
gies are grouped and tightly connected with hardware
and security-related technologies. IoT is associated with
Blockchain, AR, and hardware and security-related tech-
nologies. Blockchain is with AI, ML, IoT and AR.
Robotics is tightly coupled with Industrial Automa-
tion. 3D Printing is associated with Advanced Mate-
rials and 3D Technology that, in turn, has a connec-
tion with AR. AI and ML are connected with Intelli-
gent Systems. Similar but separated from the AI clus-
ter, Analytics and relevant technologies (Data Visu-
alisation, Data Mining, Big Data) develop their own
subnetwork.
8 B. CHAE AND D. OLSON
Figure 3. Communities of I4.0 landscape.
The next analysis highlights the interaction of the
key enabling technologies with other industry categories.
Due to limited space, only two subnetworks (Blockchain
and 3D Printing) are presented and the complete find-
ings are summarised in Table 3. Figure 6 shows the
sub-network of Blockchain and 3D Printing.
• Blockchain has connections with 66 different indus-
try categories, representing 5.6 percent of the total
network, while 3D Printing has connections with 43
industry categories, and this accounts for 3.6 percent.
• Not all 66 industry categories are equally connected
to Blockchain. Instead, the proximity between nodes
and the hub represents the strength of association
(correlation coefficients).
• Those industry categories highly connected to Block-
chain are Ethereum (0.122 at the correlation coeffi-
cient), Bitcoin (0.120), FinTech (0.119), AI (0.077),

Figure 4. The popularity of I4.0 technologies based on node centrality.
Film Distribution (0.066), Financial Services (0.066)
and Electronic Health Record (EHR) (0.058).
• 3D Printing is tightly connected with CAD (0.204),
Product Design (0.145), Mechanical Engineering
(0.122), Industrial Engineering (0.116) and different
manufacturing areas (e.g. machinery, paper).
A post-hoc analysis identified the top 10 industries
highly associated with the key technologies. Table 3
shows the complete results and some key findings are as
follows:
• 3D Technology has the highest correlation with man-
ufacturing and is strongly associated with printing,
eyewear, green consumer goods, shoes and architec-
ture.
• Advanced Materials are highly associated with textiles,
manufacturing, chemical, machinery manufacturing,
clean energy, consumer goods, and national security.
• Data Mining is popular with direct marketing, prop-
erty development, lead generation, and price compar-
ison.
• IoT is being used for smart building, wearables, light-
ing, and smart cities and security appear to be key
issues in IoT-based services.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 9
• Robotics is highly associated with STEM education,
sensors, virtual reality, transportation, toys, warehous-
ing, water, wind energy, and space travel.
• Quantified Self is popular with wellness, therapeutics,
mobile health, sensors, and sports.
5.3. The changes in the key technologies’
association
The final analysis examined the association of I4.0 tech-
nologies with other industry categories in terms of the
founded-year-of-business: (1) before 2000 and (2) since
2000. The latter group represents ‘younger’ businesses
than the former group. The rationale is ‘young’ compa-
nies are more likely to have integrated I4.0 technologies
into their products and services than those ‘older’ com-
panies founded before 2000. The results are summarised
in Figures 7 and 8 and Table 4. Figure 7 is based on the
method using the Jaccard index explained in Section 4.3
and presents the differences in the individual networks
of I4.0 technologies between the ‘younger’ and ‘older’
companies.
For example, the difference of Blockchain (5th bar in
Figure 7) applications between the younger and the older
96.67 percent, indicates the applications of Blockchain
10 B. CHAE AND D. OLSON

Figure 5. Association of I4.0 technologies.

technology differ significantly between the two groups of 6. Discussion

companies. This insight is further highlighted in Figure 8
This study has sought to explore the relationship between
and Table 4. Figure 8 shows that among the ‘older’ com-
adoptions of I4.0 enabling technologies and different
panies, Blockchain is associated with 8 industry sec-
industries. Two research questions were introduced ear-
tors, including E-Commerce Platforms, Staffing Agency,
lier:
EdTech, Marketing Automation, E-Commerce, ERP, and
Cloud Mgt. This looks very different for the ‘younger’
• What is the landscape of I4.0 enabling technologies?
businesses where the same technology is associated with
• How do I4.0 technologies interact with each other and
62 other industry sectors. Table 4 shows that the appli-
with other industries?
cation of Blockchain has significantly expanded. Among
the top application areas are ethereum, fintech, financial
The study findings reveal which industries are sig-
services, financial exchanges, electronic health records,
nificantly enabled by I4.0 technologies, as well as how
and smart cities.
the technologies are related to each other. Implications
Similarly, the application of advanced materials is
for management are indicated in Figure 3, showing what
linked with only two industry categories (Geospatial,
kinds of industries have been reported to be using six
Industrial Automation) for the ‘older’ companies. On
technologies; Figure 2 indicates interconnections, and
the other hand, the same technology is associated with
Figure 4 shows relative popularity. Table 3 shows the most
diverse industry categories, including textiles and clean
popular industry categories relative to use of enabling
energy, for the younger company group. Likewise, Aug-
I4.0 technology. Managerial implications are that a pic-
mented Reality is relevant with only five industry cat-
ture of what competitors are doing is provided, which
egories for the ‘older’ group, but with over 50 oth-
can be used to generate ideas for potential new applica-
ers, including computer vision, MMO games, for the
tions. This section provides further discussion regarding
‘younger’ group. A similar pattern was found for other
the two research questions.
I4.0 technologies.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 11

Table 3. Top 10 industry categories highly connected to 26 enabling technologies.

3D Printing 3D Technology Advanced materials Analytics Artificial intelligence
3D Technology 0.371 Mfg 0.118 Textiles 0.084 SEO 0.082 NLP 0.168
CAD 0.204 Computer Vision 0.091 Mfg 0.077 Marketing 0.078 Computer Vision 0.127
Product Design 0.145 Virtual Reality 0.085 Chemical 0.057 Social Media 0.069 Virtual Assistant 0.106
Marketing
Printing 0.138 Augmented Reality 0.084 Machinery Mfg 0.041 Market Research 0.069 Predictive Analytics 0.088
Mechanical Eng 0.122 Printing 0.081 Industrial 0.04 Data Visualisation 0.051 Blockchain 0.077
Automation
Industrial Eng 0.116 Eyewear 0.071 Clean Energy 0.037 Brand Marketing 0.05 Virtual Reality 0.071
Industrial 0.111 Green Consumer Goods 0.071 Industrial Mfg 0.036 Finance 0.049 Augmented Reality 0.063
Plastics&Rubber Mfg 0.105 Shoes 0.057 Consumer Goods 0.033 Real Time 0.048 FinTech 0.063
Industrial Design 0.088 Facial Recognition 0.052 National Security 0.032 Social Media 0.042 Biotechnology 0.062
Consumer Goods 0.06 Architecture 0.052 Consumer 0.025 Social Media Mgt 0.042 Recruiting 0.057
Research
Augmented reality Big data Blockchain Cloud computing Cloud data services
Computer Vision 0.178 Data Visualisation 0.071 Ethereum 0.122 Enterprise Software 0.163 Cloud Security 0.077
Video Games 0.09 Machine Learning 0.07 FinTech 0.119 SaaS 0.139 Cloud Mgt 0.073
Wearables 0.089 FinTech 0.05 Peer to Peer 0.079 Virtualisation 0.135 Cloud 0.071
Infrastructure
MMO Games 0.076 Data Mining 0.049 Film Distribution 0.069 IaaS 0.131 Cloud Storage 0.07
HCI 0.07 Data Integration 0.042 Financial 0.069 PaaS 0.125 Web Hosting 0.062
Exchanges
Machine Learning 0.061 Retail Technology 0.034 Financial Services 0.066 Cloud Mgt 0.121 File Sharing 0.06
Coworking 0.061 Personalisation 0.034 Funding Platform 0.061 Cloud 0.1 Data Integration 0.06
Infrastructure
Image Recognition 0.06 Privacy 0.033 EHR 0.058 Software 0.083 Flash Storage 0.051
Console Games 0.054 Semantic Web 0.032 Smart Cities 0.057 Cloud Security 0.083 Document Mgt 0.049
Ethereum 0.052 SaaS 0.031 Machine Learning 0.057 Private Cloud 0.081 IT 0.042
Cloud infrastructure Cloud Mgt Cloud storage Cyber security Data mining
Cloud Mgt 0.162 Private Cloud 0.12 File Sharing 0.126 Network Security 0.26 Direct Marketing 0.078
IT Infrastructure 0.129 IaaS 0.116 Collectibles 0.106 Penetration Testing 0.1 Property 0.069
Development
Private Cloud 0.124 IT Mgt 0.101 Photo Sharing 0.085 Identity Mgt 0.098 Lead Generation 0.054
Cloud Storage 0.087 Virtualisation 0.087 Productivity Tools 0.08 IT Infrastructure 0.081 Price Comparison 0.051
IT Mgt 0.086 Data Center Automation 0.08 Family 0.07 Technical Support 0.073 Twitter 0.048
Data Center 0.073 Web Hosting 0.075 Private Cloud 0.07 IT Mgt 0.07 Organic 0.048
Web Hosting 0.071 Enterprise Software 0.063 Photo Editing 0.063 Fraud Detection 0.067 Predictive Analytics 0.047
Data Storage 0.067 IT Infrastructure 0.062 Google 0.061 Privacy 0.061 Email Marketing 0.044
IaaS 0.066 Open Source 0.039 Presentation 0.061 Physical Security 0.061 Tourism 0.038
Software
VoIP 0.066 Technical Support 0.037 Flash Storage 0.057 Risk Mgt 0.057 Text Analytics 0.037
Data visualisation Quantified self Industrial automation Intelligent systems Internet of things
Music Label 0.043 Wellness 0.047 Industrial Mfg 0.139 National Security 0.09 Smart Building 0.147
GPU 0.043 Therapeutics 0.045 Machinery Mfg 0.094 Machine Learning 0.051 Wearables 0.126
Mapping Services 0.043 mHealth 0.044 Industrial Eng 0.091 NLP 0.047 Wireless 0.121
Property Development 0.041 Sensor 0.04 Robotics 0.074 Translation Service 0.038 Sensor 0.084
QR Codes 0.04 Sports 0.028 Plastics&Rubber 0.061 Video Conferencing 0.037 Lighting 0.068
Mfg
Graphic Design 0.038 iOS 0.026 Oil and Gas 0.055 Text Analytics 0.035 Smart Cities 0.065
Politics 0.038 Sensor 0.044 Smart Cities 0.03 Security 0.061
Freemium 0.036 Textiles 0.041 SMS 0.029 Telecom 0.052
Performing Arts 0.029 Organic 0.037 Peer to Peer 0.026 Mobile Devices 0.049
Snack Food 0.029 Paper Mfg 0.037 Risk Mgt 0.026 Network Hardware 0.046
Location based services Machine learning Network hardware Network security Predictive analytics
iOS 0.227 Predictive Analytics 0.159 Wired Telecom 0.136 Penetration Testing 0.14 Psychology 0.057
Social Media 0.167 Personalisation 0.063 Network Security 0.104 VoIP 0.039 Text Analytics 0.047
Travel 0.127 Text Analytics 0.061 Telecom 0.039 Shipping 0.036 Sales 0.041
Mobile Apps 0.117 Retail Technology 0.053 Wireless 0.038 Virtualisation 0.034 Supply Chain Mgt 0.038
Navigation 0.107 Virtual Assistant 0.05 Technical Support 0.032 Technical Support 0.032 Vocational Edu 0.037
Messaging 0.1 Sales Automation 0.047 Virtualisation 0.031 Privacy 0.032 Social Impact 0.032
Mapping Services 0.084 SaaS 0.044 Semiconductor 0.026 Wireless 0.029 TV 0.025
Search Engine 0.08 Virtual Reality 0.04 Privacy 0.024 Subscription 0.023 Product Mgt 0.025
Service
Photo Sharing 0.079 Semantic Search 0.038 VoIP 0.023 Telecom 0.022 Primary Edu 0.025
Social Network 0.073 Visual Search 0.036 Risk Mgt 0.021 Skill Assessment 0.024
(continued)
12 B. CHAE AND D. OLSON
Table 3. Continued.
Robotics
STEM Edu 0.059
Sensor 0.05
Virtual Reality 0.047
Transportation 0.047
Toys 0.045
Warehousing 0.029
Water 0.028
Wind Energy 0.027
Spam Filtering 0.027
Space Travel 0.02
6.1. The landscape of I4.0 technologies
This study has conceptualised the landscape of I4.0 tech-
nologies as a complex network of nodes (or industry
categories) and their relationships. The key insight from
the network approach is that the key technologies are not
independent entities in the evolution of I4.0 (e.g. Culot
et al. 2020; Zheng et al. 2020). Rather, they are integral
parts of a complex network or ecosystem, and interact-
ing with the broader environment of technologies and
businesses. The community analysis reveals this connect-
edness by further dividing the network into eight clus-
ters or communities of industry categories where those
I4.0 technologies emerge as the hubs in their respective
communities.
AI and ML form the largest community in the I4.0
landscape as other key technologies, such as Data Mining,
Data Visualisation, Big Data, Analytics, and Predictive
Analytics, are tightly coupled with AI and ML. This is
in line with several industry reports indicating a trend of
increasing economic activities and investment in AI/ML
technologies (Johnson 2020). Also, the AI/ML commu-
nity has expanded through tight connection with Aug-
mented (Virtual) Reality (Sahu, Young, and Rai 2020).
AR aims to increase the connectivity between the dig-
ital and physical worlds with benefits of heterogeneous
data and there is an increasing use of advanced ML algo-
rithms (e.g. deep learning) for the development of AR
applications and services (Lampropoulos, Keramopou-
los, and Diamantaras 2020). For example, the company
‘Fyusion’ (crunchbase.com/organisation/fyusion) repre-
sents an increasing number of companies combining AI
and AR technologies and offering services such as inter-
active 3D images.
The large presence of LBS and its subnetwork is
noticeable since this technology has received less atten-
tion in academic literature. LBS utilises location data
(Huang et al. 2018) and appears to be growing rapidly
in popularity. As an individual category, LBS is the sec-
ond most popular node, after IoT, in the network, and
is tightly coupled with other categories such as iOS,
social media, travel, logistics, mobile apps, navigation,
messaging, mapping services, photo sharing and social
network. The company ‘factual’, recently acquired by
Foursquare, represents a growing number of companies
developing intelligent services and applications using
location data. For this company, LBS is integrated with
industry categories such as Analytics, digital marketing,
geospatial, Internet, mobile, and mobile advertising. The
findings indicate that LBS is transforming many other
industries, including travel and networking (Huang et al.
2018) and is also shaping supply chain activities, includ-
ing delivery, event management, and fleet management.
As expected, cloud-related technologies (e.g. cloud
computing, cloud infrastructure, cloud storage) form a
large community. This network also includes categories,
such as network hardware and cyber security, related to
reliable, secure computer networks. Digital transforma-
tion relies on scalability and security of digital applica-
tions and services. Thus, cloud computing and network
security go hand-in-hand (Subramanian and Jeyaraj
2018). StackRox (crunchbase.com/organisation/stack-
rox) represents a growing business, integrating network
security technologies for cloud-based applications and
services.
One particular community of technology categories
that appears to be closely related to the manufactur-
ing sector includes Robotics, 3D Printing, Industrial
Automation, Intelligent Systems, and Advanced Mate-
rials. Among these, robotics is the most popular being
associated with 53 other industry categories, represent-
ing 4.5 percent of the whole network. This community,
with Robotics and 3D Printing as two major hubs, has
grown with industries related to goods design, sourcing
(advanced) materials, production, warehousing, distri-
bution, and transportation. Automation appears to be a
major theme in this community that includes industry
categories such as autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles,
electric design automation, and intelligent systems.
The analysis also shows that Analytics and relevant
4.0 technologies (e.g. Big Data, Data Visualisation) are
connected as a community, representing 13 percent of
the network, distinct from AI/ML. Two observations
are made regarding this finding. First, while AI/ML is

Figure 6. 1st-degree connections of blockchain and 3D printing.
enabling ‘predictive analytics’, the Analytics community
is related to ‘descriptive’ analytics with data visualisa-
tion and data integration. Second, AI/ML tends to be
connected to unstructured data (e.g. natural language
processing, virtual reality) and diverse industries (e.g. life
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 13
science, video games, e-learning, product management),
but the Analytics community is enabling one particu-
lar area, ‘marketing’ (e.g. email marketing, direct mar-
keting, cause marketing, contact marketing). Companies
invested in building analytics both in past decades and
14 B. CHAE AND D. OLSON
Figure 7. Difference in the subnetworks of key technology categories (Before 2000 & Since 2000).
today are increasingly interested in integrating AI/ML
with their existing analytic capabilities (Davenport 2018;
Zheng et al. 2020).
Another large community (12 percent of the network)
has IoT as the central node. Two broad themes appear
from this community. First, IoT is connected to other
technology sectors such as wireless technology, wear-
ables, mobile devices, and network hardware. Second,
IoT is enabling two areas greatly: smart homes/cities
and energy management. While IoT is discussed with
many other technologies and industries (Chae 2019),
these findings indicate that IoT-based products and ser-
vices being developed in industry are heavily focused on
developing smarter homes and cities, and efficient energy
management is critical for such solutions to be successful
(Ejaz et al. 2017).
Blockchain forms a community (6 percent) with rel-
evant technologies (e.g. Cryptocurrency, Ethereum) and
its community shows the applications of the technology
in many industries, including financial exchanges, fin-
tech, film production and distribution, electronic health
records (EHR), and smart cities. The findings indicate
that, while the technology is still young, there are on-
going experiments of Blockchain technology from sup-
ply chain management (Chang, Iakovou, and Shi 2020;
Yoon et al. 2020) to finance (Tapscott and Tapscott 2017),
media and entertainment (Dutra, Tumasjan, and Welpe
2018). Finally, Quantified Self develops a small com-
munity (a 2.5 percent) with relevant industries such as
wellness and mHealth.
6.2. The interaction of I4.0 technologies
The findings can be categorised into two areas: (1) the
interaction among I4.0 technologies and (2) the interac-
tion of I4.0 technologies with other industries. Related to
the former, previous studies grouped the key technolo-
gies using different criteria such as technology layers. For
example, Culot et al. (2020) categorised the key enabling
technologies into four groups by network connectivity
and their technological elements: physical/digital inter-
face technologies (e.g. IoT), network technologies (e.g.
Blockchain), data-processing technologies (e.g. AI/ML),
and physical/digital process technologies (e.g. 3D print-
ing).
The present study reveals several groups of I4.0 tech-
nologies based on how businesses configure them in
practice for new products and services. Many identi-
fied connections were expected. For example, Robotics
and Industrial Automation go hand-in-hand (Leitão,
Colombo, and Karnouskos 2016). Several cloud-based
technologies are tightly coupled, and this cloud cluster is
in close contact with security-related technologies (Zhou
et al. 2017). There are also noticeable interactions, which
deserve further discussion.
The first is the convergence of IoT, Augmented Real-
ity (AR), and Blockchain. The association of IoT and
Blockchain shows the integration of physical/digital
interface technologies and network technologies in
industry. IoT solutions have been cloud-based and there
are challenges such as security, authentication, and data

Figure 8. Difference in 3D printing subnetwork.
privacy (Zhou et al. 2017; Fernández-Caramés and
Fraga-Lamas 2018). The findings show that companies
view Blockchain as a promising technology for IoT
solutions and Blockchain-based IoT solutions are being
developed as alternatives to strengthen security for the
IoT ecosystem (Dai, Zheng, and Zhang 2019). The link
between IoT and AR shows how two technologies are
complementary to each other (Norouzi et al. 2019) and
result in a new generation of applications and services
integrating IoT data and devices with AR user adoptions
in several industries, such as manufacturing, healthcare
and retail (Mitra 2018). Blockchain’s ledger technology is
also being deployed to turn virtual objects and locations
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 15
(e.g. real estate) into trackable digital assets (Dotson
2018).
Likewise, AI and ML are integrated with AR, Block-
chain, and Intelligent Systems. AI and ML are becoming
the engines of intelligent or smart systems in many indus-
tries, such as manufacturing, transportation, and finance.
Blockchain and AI/ML are complementary as the for-
mer becomes the source of trustworthy big data and the
latter offers capability for extracting value out of such
data (Swan 2018). More businesses use AI/ML for spa-
tial design and empowering AR services through deep
learning algorithms (CMO 2019; Sahu, Young, and Rai
2020).
 16
Table 4. The association of I4.0 enabling technologies over time.

B. CHAE AND D. OLSON

3D Printing 3D Tech Advanced materials Analytics Artificial intelligence
Before 2000 3D Tech 0.415 Film 0.106 Geospatial 0.073 Big Data 0.122 Pharmaceutical 0.209
Product Design 0.248 CAD 0.104 Ind Automation 0.068 Market Research 0.111 Machine Learning 0.202
CAD 0.226 Printing 0.094 SEO 0.088 Fitness 0.164
Ind Eng 0.178 Product Design 0.09 Financial Services 0.087 Virtual Assistant 0.164
Ind 0.172 Hospitality 0.084 Search Engine 0.08 Neuroscience 0.164
Mechanical Eng 0.163 Biopharma 0.084 Risk Mgt 0.077 Life Science 0.151
Consumer Goods 0.141 Image Recognition 0.075 SEM 0.073 Semantic Web 0.151
Ind Design 0.13 Travel 0.064 Semantic Search 0.151
Food and Beverage 0.098 Reputation 0.061 Association 0.131
Printing 0.092 Property Mgt 0.061 Debt Collections 0.116
Since 2000 Mfg 0.337 Computer Vision 0.105 Textiles 0.096 SEO 0.082 NLP 0.171
CAD 0.189 Virtual Reality 0.102 Mfg 0.087 Marketing 0.072 Computer Vision 0.127
Printing 0.153 Augmented Reality 0.096 Chemical 0.078 Soc Media Marketing 0.07 Virtual Assistant 0.102
Plastics&Rubber Mfg 0.119 Green Consumer Goods 0.081 Machinery Mfg 0.056 Market Research 0.064 Predictive Analytics 0.084
Product Design 0.1 Eyewear 0.08 Ind Mfg 0.051 Data Visualisation 0.053 Blockchain 0.075
Mechanical Eng 0.098 Mfg 0.079 Consumer Goods 0.042 Real Time 0.05 Virtual Reality 0.071
Advanced Materials 0.084 Printing 0.076 Clean Energy 0.042 Finance 0.05 Augmented Reality 0.06
Ind 0.077 Architecture 0.067 National Security 0.04 Brand Marketing 0.049 FinTech 0.058
Machinery Mfg 0.074 Shoes 0.064 Consumer Research 0.031 Soc Media Mgt 0.041 Recruiting 0.056
Ind Eng 0.073 Facial Recognition 0.062 Innovation Mgt 0.03 Soc Media 0.04 Personalisation 0.054
Augmented reality Big data Blockchain Cloud computing Cloud data services
Before 2000 Virtual Reality 0.288 Predictive Analytics 0.136 E-Commerce Platforms 0.257 Web Hosting 0.255 Virtualisation 0.147
Mechanical Eng 0.276 Privacy 0.124 Staffing Agency 0.234 Mobile 0.155 Cloud Infrastructure 0.115
Consumer Electronics 0.178 Soc Media Mgt 0.098 EdTech 0.202 Intellectual Property 0.134 Document Mgt 0.115
Electronics 0.129 Public Transportation 0.088 Marketing Automation 0.18 IT Mgt 0.128 Personal Finance 0.112
Internet of Things 0.088 Personal Finance 0.088 E-Commerce 0.143 Virtualisation 0.126 Credit Bureau 0.112
GPS 0.088 ERP 0.141 Data Center 0.119 Network Security 0.107
Credit Bureau 0.088 Cloud Mgt 0.1 IaaS 0.116 Data Center 0.101
Open Source 0.083 SMS 0.116 Mgt Consulting 0.091
FinTech 0.083 Cloud Infrastructure 0.109 Cloud Mgt 0.08
Mobile Devices 0.082 PaaS 0.103 Web Hosting 0.076
Since 2000 Computer Vision 0.179 Predictive Analytics 0.072 Ethereum 0.123 Enterprise Software 0.17 Cloud Storage 0.077
Video Games 0.093 Machine Learning 0.063 FinTech 0.121 Virtualisation 0.137 Cloud Mgt 0.072
Wearables 0.083 Data Mining 0.05 Peer to Peer 0.083 IaaS 0.134 Cloud Infrastructure 0.066
MMO Games 0.076 Data Integration 0.046 Financial Services 0.073 Cloud Mgt 0.129 File Sharing 0.066
HCI 0.071 FinTech 0.045 Financial Exchanges 0.069 PaaS 0.127 Cloud Security 0.065
Image Recognition 0.062 Retail Tech 0.034 Film Distribution 0.069 SaaS 0.127 Data Integration 0.064
Coworking 0.061 Personalisation 0.033 Funding Platform 0.062 Cloud Infrastructure 0.099 Web Hosting 0.061
Machine Learning 0.058 Market Research 0.031 ICT 0.058 Private Cloud 0.085 Flash Storage 0.054
Console Games 0.054 Business Intelligence 0.03 Electronic Health Record 0.058 Cloud Security 0.082 Telecom 0.044
Ethereum 0.052 Semantic Web 0.03 Smart Cities 0.057 Open Source 0.082 Soc Assistance 0.041
(continued)
Table 4. Continued.
Cloud infrastructure Cloud Mgt Cloud storage Cyber security Data mining
Before 2000 Cloud Security 0.221 Virtualisation 0.159 Photo Sharing 0.301 IT Infrastructure 0.171 Lead Mgt 0.223
E-Commerce Platforms 0.148 Web Hosting 0.125 IaaS 0.172 Technical Support 0.158 Text Analytics 0.22
Web Hosting 0.141 Linux 0.124 Virtual Desktop 0.148 Smart Cities 0.155 Reputation 0.156
VoIP 0.123 Higher Edu 0.124 Data Storage 0.11 NFC 0.155 Prof Services 0.13
Higher Edu 0.118 Cyber Security 0.124 Consumer 0.11 Network Security 0.123 Fraud Detection 0.108
Contact Mgt 0.118 Content Marketing 0.124 Digital Media 0.075 Meeting Software 0.107 Direct Marketing 0.108
Content Marketing 0.118 Technical Support 0.12 Virtualisation 0.064 Embedded Software 0.107 Risk Mgt 0.081
Cyber Security 0.117 Private Cloud 0.112 Internet 0.059 Higher Edu 0.107 Data Visualisation 0.078
Embedded Systems 0.107 Recruiting 0.1 Information Tech 0.089 Financial Services 0.076
Marketing Automation 0.1 IaaS 0.1 Homeland Security 0.085 Information Services 0.066
Since 2000 Cloud Mgt 0.153 Private Cloud 0.121 Collectibles 0.114 Security 0.267 Direct Marketing 0.075
IT Infrastructure 0.145 IaaS 0.118 File Sharing 0.11 Penetration Testing 0.105 Property Development 0.072
Private Cloud 0.141 IT Mgt 0.116 Productivity Tools 0.086 Identity Mgt 0.1 Lead Generation 0.058
IT Mgt 0.106 Data Center Automation 0.09 Private Cloud 0.081 Fraud Detection 0.075 Price Comparison 0.056
Cloud Storage 0.093 Virtualisation 0.076 Family 0.079 IT Mgt 0.074 Organic 0.051
Data Center 0.083 Enterprise Software 0.069 Photo Sharing 0.076 Risk Mgt 0.069 Twitter 0.051
Data Storage 0.076 Web Hosting 0.066 Photo Editing 0.074 IT Infrastructure 0.067 Predictive Analytics 0.048
IaaS 0.064 IT Infrastructure 0.057 Google 0.065 Privacy 0.066 Outsourcing 0.043
Telecom 0.061 Open Source 0.043 Presentation Software 0.065 Physical Security 0.065 Email Marketing 0.043
Web Hosting 0.059 Google 0.036 Flash Storage 0.06 Technical Support 0.058 Tourism 0.041
Data visualisation Quantified self Ind automation Intelligent systems Internet of things
Before 2000 Personal Finance 0.137 Machinery Mfg 0.121 National Security 0.188 Telecom 0.104
Legal Tech 0.137 Plastics&Rubber Mfg 0.096 Reputation 0.164 Soc Media 0.101
Web Development 0.094 Ind Eng 0.095 Text Analytics 0.114 TV 0.088

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH

Reputation 0.094 Smart Home 0.068 Retail Tech 0.084 Smart Cities 0.088
Loyalty Programs 0.094 Mfg 0.067 Public Safety 0.084 Prof Networking 0.088
Higher Edu 0.094 National Security 0.059 Technical Support 0.078 Product Research 0.088
Travel 0.089 Transportation 0.061 Pri Soc Networking 0.088
Knowledge Mgt 0.077 Military 0.088
Document Preparation 0.075 Wearables 0.083
Mgt Consulting 0.073 RFID 0.083
Since 2000 Predictive Analytics 0.05 Wellness 0.047 Ind Mfg 0.132 National Security 0.071 Smart Building 0.152
Music Label 0.045 Therapeutics 0.045 Robotics 0.094 Machine Learning 0.056 Wearables 0.128
GPU 0.045 mHealth 0.044 Ind Eng 0.08 NLP 0.053 Wireless 0.119
Property Development 0.044 Sensor 0.042 Oil and Gas 0.079 Video Conferencing 0.043 Sensor 0.087
QR Codes 0.042 Sports 0.029 Machinery Mfg 0.078 Translation Service 0.041 Lighting 0.07
Politics 0.041 iOS 0.026 Sensor 0.056 Smart Cities 0.033 Smart Cities 0.064
Graphic Design 0.038 Textiles 0.053 SMS 0.033 Security 0.063
Freemium 0.038 Warehousing 0.051 Peer to Peer 0.03 Mobile Devices 0.05
RFID 0.032 Organic 0.047 Text Analytics 0.029 Telecom 0.049
Snack Food 0.031 Logistics 0.043 Operating Systems 0.028 Semiconductor 0.045
(continued)

17
 18
B. CHAE AND D. OLSON
Table 4. Continued.
Location based services Machine learning Network hardware Network security Predictive analytics
Before 2000 Restaurants 0.206 NLP 0.204 VoIP 0.112 Privacy 0.152 Shipping Broker 0.124
eSports 0.146 Subscription Service 0.157 Wireless 0.086 Power Grid 0.123 Sales 0.1
Rental 0.146 Motion Capture 0.157 Semantic Web 0.093 Wearables 0.085
Tourism 0.146 Photography 0.136 Semantic Search 0.093 Sports 0.061
Soc Media Advertising 0.146 Video Games 0.108 Technical Support 0.071 SEM 0.061
Personalisation 0.146 Reputation 0.108 Security 0.067 Risk Mgt 0.06
RFID 0.142 Risk Mgt 0.082 Private Cloud 0.066
Search Engine 0.126 Renewable Energy 0.064
Mobile 0.104
Navigation 0.104
Since 2000 iOS 0.234 Predictive Analytics 0.159 Wired Telecom 0.15 Penetration Testing 0.147 Psychology 0.058
Soc Media 0.173 Personalisation 0.061 Network Security 0.123 VoIP 0.05 Text Analytics 0.049
Travel 0.131 Text Analytics 0.054 Technical Support 0.041 Shipping 0.04 Supply Chain Mgt 0.043
Mobile Apps 0.12 Retail Tech 0.052 Virtualisation 0.038 Wireless 0.029 Vocational Edu 0.038
Navigation 0.108 Virtual Assistant 0.05 Telecom 0.037 Risk Mgt 0.026 Sales 0.037
Messaging 0.106 Sales Automation 0.048 Semiconductor 0.032 Telecom 0.025 Soc Impact 0.032
Mapping Services 0.088 Virtual Reality 0.041 Wireless 0.029 Technical Support 0.025 TV 0.026
Photo Sharing 0.081 Semantic Search 0.039 Privacy 0.027 Subscription Service 0.025 Skill Assessment 0.026
Search Engine 0.076 SaaS 0.038 Private Cloud 0.024 Privacy 0.024 Product Mgt 0.026
Soc Network 0.073 Supply Chain Mgt 0.038 Smart Building 0.022 Point of Sale 0.022 Primary Edu 0.025
Robotics
Before 2000 Virtual Reality 0.136
Water 0.068
Water Purification 0.063
Waste Mgt 0.063
Shipping 0.063
Since 2000 Software 0.061
Transportation 0.052
Toys 0.05
Sensor 0.05
Virtual Reality 0.036
Warehousing 0.034
Wind Energy 0.03
Spam Filtering 0.03
Water 0.024

The findings of this study also show that I4.0 tech-
nologies are increasingly integrated for applications in
both B2C and industrial environments. Among the
technologies, IoT appears to be interacting with the
largest number of industries. Two of the most popular
applications of IoT are smart buildings and smart cities.
This relationship received early attention in academic
research (Zanella et al. 2014). The impact of IoT seems far
reaching, including industries like consumer electronics,
automotive, energy, green building, product design, last
mile transportation, agriculture, and health and lifestyle.
LBS, while discussed less often in academic literature,
is positioned as the key technology enabler for industries
such as travel, social media, restaurants, logistics, and
vehicle management (Huang et al. 2018). Previous LBS
application areas remained in B2C sectors (Hamari et al.
2019). Its popularity is growing for industrial environ-
ments (Falkowski et al. 2018) as the technology is being
integrated with other I4.0 technologies such as Auge-
mented Reality and IoT (Wi et al. 2018). Indoor location
services can support smart manufacturing processes and
facilities (Carrasco et al. 2018).
7. Conclusions
The concept of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is evolving from manu-
facturing automation through digitalisation to strategis-
ing digital technologies for smart applications (Xu, Xu,
and Li 2018; Culot et al. 2020). The literature has placed a
number of digital technologies, including artificial intel-
ligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT), at the center of
I4.0 (Moeuf et al. 2018; Frank et al. 2019b; Zheng et al.
2020). This research has taken a complex network view
of I4.0 technologies and, using network analytics, inves-
tigated the ecosystem and evolution of the network of
those technologies. To the best of our knowledge, this is
the first study of I4.0 to take a network approach and to
use a large-scale industry database to study I4.0.
Managing firms in the I4.0 era requires keeping up
with competitors, and ideally thinking of new ways to
gain or maintain comptetitive advantage. This research
shows that I4.0 technologies are coupled with other
technologies and many industry sectors. The network
approach enables shedding of light not only on such con-
nections, but also on the strength of the connections.
The result is a network view of the I.40 technologies
ecosystem with edges and nodes. In addition, the con-
nections and their strength evolve as digital technologies
are born and grow in popularity over time. Businesses
are taking advantage of this evolutionary process, and
new businesses tend to be strategising more digital tech-
nologies and developing novel applications in a growing
number of new industry sectors. Thus, the management
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 19
implication is that it is important to identify what is
being done to take advantage of emerging technologies.
This research clearly shows that the ecosystem of I4.0
technologies is expanding into diverse industry sectors.
Future research could identify novel data sources (e.g.
Twitter, Reddit) and apply network analytics. For exam-
ple, Twitter data has been available since 2006 and is
a popular platform for coversation related to technol-
ogy, supply chain, and innovation. Applying the proposed
network approach to this type of digital trace data could
provide a clearer view of how I4.0 technologies have co-
evolved with diverse technologies and industry sectors.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Bongsug (Kevin) Chae is the Jon Wefald
Distinguished Chair in Business and Data
Analytics at Kansas State University. He
researches data analytics, supply chain
analytics, and social media analytics. He
has made presentations in universities and
global companies in several countries, pri-
marily on the topic of data analytics and
business intelligence, supply chain management, and compu-
tational social science. His research has been published in
Decision Sciences, Decision Support Systems, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, International Journal of Produc-
tion Research, International Journal of Production Economics,
Business Horizon, etc.
David L. Olson is the James & H.K. Stu-
art Chancellors Distinguished Chair Pro-
fessor of Supply Chain Management and
Analytics at the University of Nebraska.
He has published research in over 150
refereed journal articles, primarily on
the topic of multiple objective decision-
making, information technology, supply
chain risk management, and data mining. He has authored
over 20 books. He has served as associate editor of Service
Business, Decision Support Systems, and Decision Sciences and
coeditor in chief of International Journal of Services Sciences. He
has made over 200 presentations at international and national
conferences on research topics. He is a member of the Deci-
sion Sciences Institute, the Institute for Operations Research
and Management Sciences, and the Multiple Criteria Decision
Making Society. He was named Best Enterprise Information
Systems Educator by IFIP in 2006. He is a fellow of the Decision
Sciences Institute.
Note
1. Advanced Materials, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented
Reality, Machine Learning, Internet of Things, 3D Print-
ing, 3D Technology, Blockchain, Industrial Automation,
20 B. CHAE AND D. OLSON
Cloud Infrastructure, Cloud Management, Cloud Com-
puting, Cloud Data Services, Cloud Storage, Cyber Secu-
rity, Analytics, Big Data, Data Mining, Data Visualiza-
tion, Intelligent Systems, Location Based Services, Predic-
tive Analytics, Quantified Self, Network Security, Network
Hardware, Robotics.
References
Ardolino, Marco, Mario Rapaccini, Nicola Saccani, Paolo
Gaiardelli, Giovanni Crespi, and Carlo Ruggeri. 2018. “The
Role of Digital Technologies for the Service Transformation
of Industrial Companies.” International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 56 (6): 2116–2132. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017
.1324224.
Bastian, Mathieu, Sebastien Heymann, and Mathieu Jacomy.
2009. “Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and
Manipulating Networks.” ICWSM 8: 361–362.
Blondel, Vincent D, Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte,
and Etienne Lefebvre. 2008. “Fast Unfolding of Commu-
nities in Large Networks.” Journal of Statistical Mechanics:
Theory and Experiment 2008 (10): P10008.
Bohlin, Ludvig, Daniel Edler, Andrea Lancichinetti, and Mar-
tin Rosvall. 2014. “Community Detection and Visualization
of Networks with the Map Equation Framework.” In Mea-
suring Scholarly Impact, edited by Y Ding, R Rousseau, and
D Wolfram, 3–34. Cham: Springer.
Bonaventura, Moreno, Luca Maria Aiello, Daniele Quercia, and
Vito Latora. 2021. “Predicting Urban Innovation from the
US Workforce Mobility Network.” Humanities and Social
Sciences Communications 8 (1): 10. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-
00685-7.
Brunelli, Jacapo, Vladimir Lukic, Tom Milon, and Marco Tan-
tardini. 2017. Five Lessons from the Frontlines of Industry 4.0.
Boston, MA, USA: The Boston Consulting Group.
Büchi, Giacomo, Monica Cugno, and Rebecca Castagnoli.
2020. “Smart Factory Performance and Industry 4.0.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 150: 119790.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119790.
Carrasco, Ulises, Pedro Daniel, Urbina Coronado, Mahmoud
Parto, and Thomas Kurfess. 2018. “Indoor Location Service
in Support of a Smart Manufacturing Facility.” Computers in
Industry 103: 132–140. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2018.09.009.
Chae, Bongsug Kevin. 2019. “The Evolution of the Internet of
Things (IoT): A Computational Text Analysis.” Telecommu-
nications Policy, 101848. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101848.
Chae, Bongsug Kevin, David Olson, and Chwen Sheu.
2014. “The Impact of Supply Chain Analytics on Oper-
ational Performance: A Resource-Based View.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research 52 (16): 4695–4710.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2013.861616.
Chang, Yanling, Eleftherios Iakovou, and Weidong Shi. 2020.
“Blockchain in Global Supply Chains and Cross Border
Trade: A Critical Synthesis of the State-of-the-Art, Chal-
lenges and Opportunities.” International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 58 (7): 2082–2099.
Chien, Chen-Fu, Stéphane Dauzère-Pérès, Woonghee Tim
Huh, Young Jae Jang, and James R. Morrison. 2020. “Arti-
ficial Intelligence in Manufacturing and Logistics Sys-
tems: Algorithms, Applications, and Case Studies.” Inter-
national Journal of Production Research 58 (9): 2730–2731.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1752488.
Choi, T., K. Dooley, and M. Rungtusanatham. 2001. “Sup-
ply Networks and Complex Adaptive Systems: Control Ver-
sus Emergence.” Journal of Operations Management 19:
351–366.
CMO. 2019. “How AI-Powered Augmented Reality Transforms
Digital Experience.” https://cmo.adobe.com/articles/2019/8
/how-aipowered-augmented-reality-transforms-digital-expe
riences.html#gs.dajcmr.
Culot, Giovanna, Guido Nassimbeni, Guido Orzes, and Marco
Sartor. 2020. “Behind the Definition of Industry 4.0: Analy-
sis and Open Questions.” International Journal of Production
Economics, 107617. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107617.
Dai, Hong-Ning, Zibin Zheng, and Yan Zhang. 2019. “Block-
chain for Internet of Things: A Survey.” IEEE Internet of
Things Journal 6 (5): 8076–8094.
Dalenogare, Lucas Santos, Guilherme Brittes Benitez, Néstor
Fabián Ayala, and Alejandro Germán Frank. 2018. “The
Expected Contribution of Industry 4.0 Technologies for
Industrial Performance.” International Journal of Production
Economics 204: 383–394.
Dalle, Jean-Michel, Matthijs Den Besten, and Carlo Menon.
2017. “Using Crunchbase for Economic and Managerial
Research.”
Davenport, Thomas H. 2018. “From Analytics to Artificial
Intelligence.” Journal of Business Analytics 1 (2): 73–80.
Ding, Ying. 2011. “Community Detection: Topological vs. Top-
ical.” Journal of Informetrics 5 (4): 498–514.
Dotson, K. 2018. “Verses Launches Augmented Reality Block-
chain to Connect Physical and Virtual Spaces.” siliconAN-
GLE https://siliconangle.com/2018/08/15/verses-launches-a
ugmented-reality-blockchain-connect-physical-virtual-
spaces/.
Dutra, Andre, Andranik Tumasjan, and Isabell M Welpe. 2018.
“Blockchain is Changing How Media and Entertainment
Companies Compete.” MIT Sloan Management Review 60
(1): 39–45.
Ejaz, Waleed, Muhammad Naeem, Adnan Shahid, Alagan
Anpalagan, and Minho Jo. 2017. “Efficient Energy Man-
agement for the Internet of Things in Smart Cities.” IEEE
Communications Magazine 55 (1): 84–91.
Emrouznejad, Ali, and Marianna Marra. 2017. “The State
of the Art Development of AHP (1979–2017): A Liter-
ature Review with a Social Network Analysis.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research 55 (22): 6653–6675.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1334976.
Falkowski, Tommy, Christoph Jürgenhake, Harald Anacker,
and Roman Dumitrescu. 2018. “Feature Model for the Spec-
ification of Industrial Indoor Location-Based Services.” Pro-
cedia Manufacturing 24: 141–146. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2018
.06.048.
Fernández-Caramés, Tiago M, and Paula Fraga-Lamas. 2018.
“A Review on the Use of Blockchain for the Internet of
Things.” IEEE Access 6: 32979–33001.
Fortunato, Santo. 2010. “Community Detection in Graphs.”
Physics Reports 486 (3): 75–174.
Frank, Alejandro Germán, Lucas Santos Dalenogare, and Nés-
tor Fabián Ayala. 2019a. “Industry 4.0 Technologies: Imple-
mentation Patterns in Manufacturing Companies.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 210: 15–26.
Frank, Alejandro G, Glauco HS Mendes, Néstor F Ayala, and
Antonio Ghezzi. 2019b. “Servitization and Industry 4.0 Con-
vergence in the Digital Transformation of Product Firms:

A Business Model Innovation Perspective.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 141: 341–351.
Friesike, Sascha, Christoph M. Flath, Marco Wirth, and
Frédéric Thiesse. 2019. “Creativity and Productivity in
Product Design for Additive Manufacturing: Mechanisms
and Platform Outcomes of Remixing.” Journal of Opera-
tions Management 65 (8): 735–752. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2018.
10.004.
Garbuio, Massimo, and Nidthida Lin. 2019. “Artificial Intelli-
gence as a Growth Engine for Health Care Startups: Emerg-
ing Business Models.” California Management Review 61 (2):
59–83. doi:10.1177/0008125618811931.
Gardan, Julien. 2016. “Additive Manufacturing Technologies:
State of the Art and Trends.” International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 54 (10): 3118–3132. doi:10.1080/00207543.20
15.1115909.
Gauger, Felix, Andreas Pfnür, and Jan-Oliver Strych. 2021.
“Coworking Spaces and Start-Ups: Empirical Evidence
from a Product Market Competition and Life Cycle
Perspective.” Journal of Business Research 132: 67–78.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.008.
Gawankar, Shradha A., Angappa Gunasekaran, and Sachin
Kamble. 2020. “A Study on Investments in the Big Data-
Driven Supply Chain, Performance Measures and Organi-
sational Performance in Indian Retail 4.0 Context.” Inter-
national Journal of Production Research 58 (5): 1574–1593.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1668070.
Ghobakhloo, Morteza. 2018. “The Future of Manufactur-
ing Industry: A Strategic Roadmap Toward Industry 4.0.”
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29 (6):
910–936.
Girvan, Michelle, and Mark EJ Newman. 2002. “Community
Structure in Social and Biological Networks.” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 99 (12): 7821–7826.
Greenman, S. 2019. “The Secrets of Successful AI Star-
tups. Who’s Making Money in AI?” Toward Data Science.
https://towardsdatascience.com/the-secrets-of-successful-ai
-startups-whos-making-money-in-ai-part-ii-207fea92a8d5.
Griffiths, Thomas L, Mark Steyvers, and Joshua B Tenenbaum.
2007. “Topics in Semantic Representation.” Psychological
Review 114 (2): 211.
Gupta, Shivam, Sachin Modgil, and Angappa Gunasekaran.
2020. “Big Data in Lean Six Sigma: A Review and Fur-
ther Research Directions.” International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 58 (3): 947–969. doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.
1598599.
Hahn, Gerd J. 2020. “Industry 4.0: A Supply Chain Innovation
Perspective.” International Journal of Production Research 58
(5): 1425–1441.
Hamari, Juho, Aqdas Malik, Johannes Koski, and Aditya
Johri. 2019. “Uses and Gratifications of Pokémon Go: Why
do People Play Mobile Location-Based Augmented Reality
Games?” International Journal of Human–Computer Interac-
tion 35 (9): 804–819.
Hinton, Geoffrey E., Simon Osindero, and Yee-Whye Teh. 2006.
“A Fast Learning Algorithm for Deep Belief Nets.” Neural
Computation 18 (7): 1527–1554. doi:10.1162/neco.2006.18.7
.1527%M 16764513.
Huang, Haosheng, Georg Gartner, Jukka M. Krisp, Martin
Raubal, and Nico Van de Weghe. 2018. “Location Based Ser-
vices: Ongoing Evolution and Research Agenda.” Journal of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 21
Location Based Services 12 (2): 63–93. doi:10.1080/17489725.
2018.1508763.
Ivanov, Dmitry, Alexandre Dolgui, and Boris Sokolov. 2019.
“The Impact of Digital Technology and Industry 4.0
on the Ripple Effect and Supply Chain Risk Analytics.”
International Journal of Production Research 57 (3): 829–
846.
Ivanov, Dmitry, Christopher S. Tang, Alexandre Dolgui, Daria
Battini, and Ajay Das. 2020. “Researchers’ Perspectives on
Industry 4.0: Multi-Disciplinary Analysis and Opportu-
nities for Operations Management.” International Journal
of Production Research, 1–24. doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.
1798035.
Johnson, K. 2020. “CB Insights: AI Startup Funding Hit New
High of $26.6 Billion in 2019.” Venture Beat. https://ventureb
eat.com/2020/01/22/cb-insights-ai-startup-funding-hit-new
-high-of-26-6-billion-in-2019/.
Kim, Y., T. Choi, T. Yan, and K. Dooley. 2011. “Structural
Investigation of Supply Networks: A Social Network Anal-
ysis Approach.” Journal of Operations Management 29: 194–
211.
Kohli, R., and V. Grover. 2008. “Business Value of IT: An Essay
on Expanding Research Directions to Keep Up with the
Times.” Journal of Association for Information Systems 9 (1):
23–39.
Lampropoulos, Georgios, Euclid Keramopoulos, and Kon-
stantinos Diamantaras. 2020. “Enhancing the Functionality
of Augmented Reality Using Deep Learning, Semantic Web
and Knowledge Graphs: A Review.” Visual Informatics 4 (1):
32–42. doi:10.1016/j.visinf.2020.01.001.
Lee, K. 2018. AI Super-Powers: China, Silicon Valley and the New
World Order. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Leitão, Paulo, Armando Walter Colombo, and Stamatis
Karnouskos. 2016. “Industrial Automation Based on Cyber-
Physical Systems Technologies: Prototype Implementations
and Challenges.” Computers in Industry 81:
11–25.
Lu, Yang. 2017. “Industry 4.0: A Survey on Technologies, Appli-
cations and Open Research Issues.” Journal of Industrial
Information Integration 6: 1–10.
Mitra, S. 2018. “The Role of Augmented Reality and IoT in the
Connected Digital Enterprise.” https://www.tcs.com/blogs/
the-role-of-augmented-reality-and-iot-in-the-connected-di
gital-enterprise.
Moeuf, Alexandre, Robert Pellerin, Samir Lamouri, Simon
Tamayo-Giraldo, and Rodolphe Barbaray. 2018. “The Indus-
trial Management of SMEs in the Era of Industry 4.0.” Inter-
national Journal of Production Research 56 (3): 1118–1136.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1372647.
Mullany, Michael. 2016. “8 Lessons from 20 Years of Hype
Cycles.” https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/8-lessons-from-20
-years-hype-cycles-michael-mullany/.
Newman, Mark EJ. 2012. “Communities, Modules and Large-
Scale Structure in Networks.” Nature Physics 8 (1): 25–31.
Norouzi, Nahal, Gerd Bruder, Brandon Belna, Stefanie Mutter,
Damla Turgut, and Greg Welch. 2019. “A Systematic Review
of the Convergence of Augmented Reality, Intelligent Virtual
Agents, and the Internet of Things.” In Artificial Intelligence
in IoT. Transactions on Computational Science and Com-
putational Intelligence., edited by F Turjman, 1–24. Cham:
Springer.
22 B. CHAE AND D. OLSON
Olsen, Tava Lennon, and Brian Tomlin. 2020. “Industry
4.0: Opportunities and Challenges for Operations Manage-
ment.” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 22
(1): 113–122. doi:10.1287/msom.2019.0796.
Oztemel, Ercan, and Samet Gursev. 2020. “Literature Review of
Industry 4.0 and Related Technologies.” Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing 31 (1): 127–182.
Pan, Ying, De-Hua Li, Jian-Guo Liu, and Jing-Zhang Liang.
2010. “Detecting Community Structure in Complex Net-
works Via Node Similarity.” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics
and its Applications 389 (14): 2849–2857.
Pathak, S., J. Day, A. Nair, W. Sawaya, and M. Kristal.
2007. “Complexity and Adaptivity in Supply Networks:
Building Supply Network Theory Using a Complex Adap-
tive Systems Perspective.” Decision Sciences 38 (4): 547–
580.
Perera, Supun, Michael G. H. Bell, and Michiel C. J. Bliemer.
2017. “Network Science Approach to Modelling the Topol-
ogy and Robustness of Supply Chain Networks: A Review
and Perspective.” Applied Network Science 2 (1): 33.
doi:10.1007/s41109-017-0053-0.
Porter, Mason A, Jukka-Pekka Onnela, and Peter J Mucha.
2009. “Communities in Networks.” Notices of the AMS 56 (9):
1082–1097.
Pržulj, Nataša, and Noël Malod-Dognin. 2016. “Network
Analytics in the Age of Big Data.” Science 353 (6295):
123–124.
Rocha, Clarissa Figueredo, Diórgenes Falcão Mamédio, and
Carlos Olavo Quandt. 2019. “Startups and the Innovation
Ecosystem in Industry 4.0.” Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management 31 (12): 1474–1487.
Sahu, Chandan K., Crystal Young, and Rahul Rai. 2020. “Arti-
ficial Intelligence (AI) in Augmented Reality (AR)-Assisted
Manufacturing Applications: A Review.” International Jour-
nal of Production Research, 1–57. doi:10.1080/00207543.2020
.1859636.
Shams, Rushdi. 2018. “Developing Machine Learning Products
Better and Faster at Startups.” IEEE Engineering Manage-
ment Review 46 (3): 36–39.
Shi, Zhan, Gene Moo Lee, and Andrew B Whinston. 2016.
“Toward a Better Measure of Business Proximity: Topic
Modeling for Industry Intelligence.” MIS Quarterly
40: 4.
Silva, Jersone Tasso Moreira, Jose Humberto Ablanedo-Rosas,
and Dennys Eduardo Rossetto. 2019. “A Longitudinal Lit-
erature Network Review of Contributions Made to the
Academy Over the Past 55 Years of the IJPR.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research 57 (15–16): 4627–4653.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1484953.
Sriskandarajah, Chelliah, and Bala Shetty. 2018. “A Review
of Recent Theoretical Development in Scheduling Dual-
Gripper Robotic Cells.” International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 56 (1/2): 817–847. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.
1397792.
Steyvers, Mark, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. 2005. “The Large-
Scale Structure of Semantic Networks: Statistical Analyses
and a Model of Semantic Growth.” Cognitive Science 29 (1):
41–78.
Strogatz, S. H. 2001. “Exploring Complex Networks.” Nature
410: 268–276.
Subramanian, Nalini, and Andrews Jeyaraj. 2018. “Recent
Security Challenges in Cloud Computing.” Computers &
Electrical Engineering 71: 28–42. doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.
2018.06.006.
Surana, A., S. Kumara, M. Greaves, and U. Raghavan. 2005.
“Supply-Chain Networks: A Complex Adaptive Systems Per-
spective.” International Journal of Production Research 43
(20): 4235–4265.
Swan, Melanie. 2018. “Chapter Five – Blockchain for Business:
Next-Generation Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Systems.”
In Advances in Computers. Vol. 111., edited by Pethuru Raj
and Ganesh Chandra Deka, 121–162. Elsevier.
Tan, Kim Hua, Guojun Ji, Chee Peng Lim, and Ming-Lang
Tseng. 2017. “Using Big Data to Make Better Decisions in
the Digital Economy.” International Journal of Production
Research 55 (17): 4998–5000. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.
1331051.
Tang, Christopher S, and Lucas P Veelenturf. 2019. “The Strate-
gic Role of Logistics in the Industry 4.0 Era.” Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 129:
1–11.
Tapscott, Alex, and Don Tapscott. 2017. “How Blockchain is
Changing Finance.” Harvard Business Review 1 (9): 2–5.
Tiba, Sarah, Frank J. van Rijnsoever, and Marko P. Hekkert.
2021. “Sustainability Startups and Where to Find Them:
Investigating the Share of Sustainability Startups Across
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and the Causal Drivers of Dif-
ferences.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 127054. doi:10.1016
/j.jclepro.2021.127054.
Tukamuhabwa, Benjamin R., Mark Stevenson, Jerry Busby, and
Marta Zorzini. 2015. “Supply Chain Resilience: Definition,
Review and Theoretical Foundations for Further Study.”
International Journal of Production Research 53 (18): 5592–
5623. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1037934.
Wi, Dae Han, Hyo Jun Kwon, Jung Kwang Park, Soon Ju Kang,
and Jae Duck Lee. 2018. “Opportunistic and Location-Based
Collaboration Architecture Among Mobile Assets and Fixed
Manufacturing Processes.” Sensors 18 (8): 2703.
Xu, Li Da, Eric L Xu, and Ling Li. 2018. “Industry 4.0: State of
the Art and Future Trends.” International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 56 (8): 2941–2962.
Yin, Yong, Kathryn E Stecke, and Dongni Li. 2018. “The Evo-
lution of Production Systems from Industry 2.0 Through
Industry 4.0.” International Journal of Production Research
56 (1-2): 848–861.
Yoo, Y., O. Henfridsson, and K. Lyytinen. 2010. “The New Orga-
nizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Informa-
tion Systems Research.” Information Systems Research 21 (4):
724–735.
Yoon, Jiho, Srinivas Talluri, Hakan Yildiz, and Chwen Sheu.
2020. “The Value of Blockchain Technology Implemen-
tation in International Trades Under Demand Volatility
Risk.” International Journal of Production Research 58 (7):
2163–2183. doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1693651.
Zanella, Andrea, Nicola Bui, Angelo Castellani, Lorenzo Van-
gelista, and Michele Zorzi. 2014. “Internet of Things for
Smart Cities.” IEEE Internet of Things Journal 1 (1): 22–32.
Zhang, Yihui, Fan Zhang, Zheng Yan, Qiang Ma, Xiuling Li,
Yonggang Huang, and John A Rogers. 2017. “Printing, Fold-
ing and Assembly Methods for Forming 3D Mesostructures

in Advanced Materials.” Nature Reviews Materials 2 (4):
1–17.
Zheng, Ting, Marco Ardolino, Andrea Bacchetti, and Marco
Perona. 2020. “The Applications of Industry 4.0 Technolo-
gies in Manufacturing Context: A Systematic Literature
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 23
Review.” International Journal of Production Research, 1–33.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1824085.
Zhou, Jun, Zhenfu Cao, Xiaolei Dong, and Athanasios V Vasi-
lakos. 2017. “Security and Privacy for Cloud-Based IoT:
Challenges.” IEEE Communications Magazine 55 (1): 26–33.