Proceedings,16th IFAC Symposium on

Proceedings,16th
Information ControlIFAC Symposium
Problems on
in Manufacturing
Proceedings,16th
Proceedings,16th
Information ControlIFAC
IFAC Symposium
Symposium
Problems in Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
on
on
Manufacturing
Bergamo, Italy,
Proceedings,16th
Information June
Control 11-13,
IFAC 2018
Symposium
Problems in on
Information
Bergamo, Control
Italy, JuneProblems
11-13, in Manufacturing
2018 Manufacturing
Information
Bergamo, Control Problems in Manufacturing
Bergamo, Italy,
Italy, June
June 11-13,
11-13, 2018
2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 19–24
Data driven management in Industry 4.0:
Data
Data driven
driventomanagement
management in Industry
Industry 4.0:
inProductivity 4.0:
a method
Data driven measure Data
management in Industry 4.0:
a method to measure Data
a method to measure Data Productivity Productivity
GiovanniaMiragliotta*,
method to measure
Andrea Data
Sianesi*, Elisa Productivity
Convertini*, Rossella Distante*
Giovanni Miragliotta*, Andrea Sianesi*, Elisa Convertini*, Rossella Distante*
Giovanni
Giovanni Miragliotta*,
Miragliotta*, Andrea Sianesi*,
Andrea Sianesi*, Elisa Convertini*, Rossella
Elisa Distante*
Giovanni Miragliotta*, Andrea 
Sianesi*, Elisa Convertini*,
*Department of Management Engineering, Politecnico Convertini*, Rossella
Rossella
di Milano, Via
Distante*
Distante*
Lambruschini 4/B;
*Department
20156 of
Milano Management
(Tel: +39 Engineering,
02 2399 Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini
 278;e-mail: giovanni.miragliotta@polimi.it) 4/B;
*Department
*Department of
of Management
Management Engineering,
Engineering, Politecnico
Politecnico di
di Milano,
Milano, Via
Via Lambruschini
Lambruschini 4/B;
4/B;
20156 Milano
*Department
*Department of (Tel: +39
of Management
Management 02 2399
Engineering, 278;e-mail:
Politecnico di giovanni.miragliotta@polimi.it)
digiovanni.miragliotta@polimi.it)
Milano, Via
Via Lambruschini
Lambruschini 4/B;
4/B;
20156
20156 Milano
Milano (Tel:
(Tel: +39 Engineering,
02 Politecnico
2399 278;e-mail: Milano,
*Department
20156
20156 Milano
*Department of
Milano
of (Tel: +39
Management
(e-mail:+39
Management
02
02 2399
2399 278;e-mail:
Engineering, Politecnico
278;e-mail:
andrea.sianesi@polimi.it
Engineering, Politecnico) di
di
giovanni.miragliotta@polimi.it)
Milano, Via Lambruschini 4/B;
giovanni.miragliotta@polimi.it)
*Department
Milano, Via of Management
Lambruschini 4/B;
*Department
20156 Milano
*Department of
of Management
(e-mail: di
Management Engineering, Politecnico)di
andrea.sianesi@polimi.it
Engineering, Milano, Via
Via Lambruschini
*Department of 4/B;
Management
Engineering,
20156
20156 Milano
Milano Politecnico
(e-mail:
(e-mail: Milano, Via Politecnico
andrea.sianesi@polimi.it
andrea.sianesi@polimi.it ))di*Department
Lambruschini Milano,
4/B; 20156
*Department
Lambruschini
Milano
of
of
4/B;
(e-mail:
Management
Management
Engineering,
20156 Milano Politecnico
(e-mail:
elisa.convertini@polimi.it di Milano, Via Lambruschini
andrea.sianesi@polimi.it
) *Department )
ofLambruschini 4/B; 20156
*Department
Management4/B; Milano
of
Engineering, (e-mail:
Management
Politecnico di
Engineering,
Engineering, Politecnico
Politecnico di
di Milano,
Milano, Via
Via Lambruschini 4/B; 20156
20156 Milano (e-mail:
elisa.convertini@polimi.it
Engineering,
Milano, Via Lambruschini
elisa.convertini@polimi.it
) *Department
Politecnico 4/B;
di
) Milano,
20156 Via of Management
Lambruschini
Milano(e-mail:
*Department of Management 4/B; 20156 Milano
Engineering,
Engineering,Milano (e-mail:
Politecnico di
(e-mail:
rossella.distante@mail.polimi.it
Politecnico )di
elisa.convertini@polimi.it )) *Department
Milano, Via Lambruschini 4/B;
elisa.convertini@polimi.it of
of Management
20156 Milano(e-mail:
*Department Engineering,
Engineering, Politecnico
Politecnico ))di
rossella.distante@mail.polimi.it
Management di
Milano,
Milano, Via Lambruschini 4/B; 20156 Milano(e-mail: rossella.distante@mail.polimi.it
Milano, Via
Via Lambruschini
Lambruschini 4/B;
4/B; 20156
20156 Milano(e-mail:
Milano(e-mail: rossella.distante@mail.polimi.it
rossella.distante@mail.polimi.it ))
Abstract: In the early 1900s, together with the birth of mass production, modern managerial approaches
Abstract:
were In the early
conceived, under1900s,
the mottotogether “youwith can’tthemanage
birth ofwhat massyou production, modern managerial
don’t measure”. Since then, approaches
operations
Abstract:
Abstract: In
In the
the early
early 1900s,
1900s, together
together with
with the
the birth
birth of
of mass
mass production,
production, modern
modern managerial
managerial approaches
were
Abstract:
managers conceived,
In the
throughout under
early the
1900s,
thethe motto
world together “you
had“you can’t
with
beencan’t themanage
getting birth of
used to what
mass you
measure don’t
production, measure”.
modern
the productivity Since
managerial then, approaches
of materials, operations
approaches
machines
were
were conceived,
conceived, under
under the motto
motto “you can’t manage
manage what
what you
you don’t
don’t measure”.
measure”. Since
Since then,
then, operations
operations
managers
were
and workers throughout
conceived,to control the
underthethe
and world
motto
improve had been
“you
their getting
can’t
own used
manage
businesses. to measure
what you don’t
Nowadays, the productivity
in measure”.
the Industry of
Since materials,
4.0 then,
era, machines
theoperations
emphasis
managers
managers throughout
throughout the world
world had
had been
been getting
getting used
used to
to measure
measure the
the productivity
productivity of
of materials,
materials, machines
machines
and
is workers
managers
shifting to control
throughout
toward data,and
the improve
world
under had
the their
been
new own
motto businesses.
getting used
“data to
is Nowadays,
measure
the new the
oil”. in the Industry
productivity
Despite many of 4.0 era, the machines
materials,
managers emphasis
pledging
and
and workers
workers to
to control
control and
and improve
improve their
their own
own businesses.
businesses. Nowadays,
Nowadays, in
in the
the Industry
Industry 4.0
4.0 era,
era, the
the emphasis
emphasis
is
andshifting
workers
allegiance toward
to tothe data,
control and
principlesunder
improve
of the
data new
their
driven motto
own “data
businesses.
decision is
making,the new
Nowadays,
stilloil”.
no in Despite
the many
Industry
comprehensive 4.0managers
era,
approach the pledging
emphasis
exists to
is
is shifting
shifting toward
toward data,
data, under
under the
the new
new motto
motto “data
“data is
is the
the new
new oil”.
oil”. Despite
Despite many
many managers
managers pledging
pledging
allegiance
is shifting
measure howto the
toward
good principles
data,
a under
company of data
the
is at newdriven motto
exploiting decision
“data
the making,
is
potential the new
of still
its no
oil”.
own comprehensive
Despite
information many assets; approach
managers
in other exists
pledging
words, to
allegiance
allegiance to
to the
the principles
principles of
of data
data driven
driven decision
decision making,
making, still
still no
no comprehensive
comprehensive approach
approach exists
exists to
to
measure
allegiance
no “data howto good
the
productivity” a company
principles
measure of is at
data
exists. exploiting
driven
In this the
decision
paper, potential
making,
we of
present its
still
a ownno
first information
comprehensive
method to assets;
define in
approach
and other
measure words,
exists to
data
measure
measure how
how good
good a
a company
company is
is at
at exploiting
exploiting the
the potential
potential of
of its
its own
own information
information assets;
assets; in
in other
other words,
words,
no “data
measure
productivity.productivity”
how good a measure
company
Relying measure exists.
is at
on a comprehensive In
exploitingthis paper,
the we
potential
literature present
of itsa first
own
review,aa first method
information
and method
inspiredto to define
by assets; and
the and in measure
other
traditional data
words,
OEE
no
no “data productivity” exists. In this paper, we
we present
present define measure data
“data
“data productivity”
productivity.
no
framework, Relying
productivity”
this new
measure
on a brings
measure
method
exists.
comprehensive
exists. some
In
In this
this paper,
literature
paper,
innovative we review,a first
present
perspectives. and
first method
inspired
method
First, data
to
tobydefine
definethe and
productivity and is
measure
traditional
measure
broken
data
OEE
data
into
productivity.
productivity. Relying
Relying on
on a
a comprehensive
comprehensive literature
literature review,
review, and
and inspired
inspired by
by the
the traditional
traditional OEE
OEE
framework,
productivity.
data this
availability, new
Relying method
quality on a brings
and brings
performancesome
comprehensive innovative
literature perspectives.
review,
of the decision-making First,
and data
inspired
process productivity
usingby the
those data. is broken
traditional
Second, into
OEE it
framework,
framework, this
this new
new method
method brings some
some innovative
innovative perspectives.
perspectives. First,
First, data
data productivity
productivity is
is broken
broken into
into
data availability,
framework,
includes both this quality
new
technical methodand
and performance
brings
organizational of
some innovative the
factors, decision-making
perspectives.
helping companies process
First, todata using those
productivity
evaluate data.
their data. Second,
is broken
current levelinto it
of
data
data availability,
availability, quality
quality and
and performance
performance of
of the
the decision-making
decision-making process
process using
using those
those data. Second,
Second, it
it
includes
data
productivity,both
availability, technical
and actions and
qualityand and
to organizational
performance
improve factors,
of
it. The model the has helping
decision-making
been tested companies process
through to evaluate
three using
cases their
those current
data.
studies and level
Second,
itlevel of
resultsit
includes
includes both
both technical
technical and organizational
organizational factors,
factors, helping
helping companies
companies to
to evaluate
evaluate their
their current
current level of
of
productivity,
includes
as bothand
effectively actionsand
technical to improve
implementable. organizational
The it.results
The model
factors,has
obtained been
helping
from tested through
companies
its application tothree casestheir
evaluate
reflect studies
the and itlevel
current
expectations results
of
of
productivity,
productivity, and
and actions
actions to
to improve it. The model has been tested through three cases studies and it results
as effectively
productivity,
companies‘
as effectively and
managers to improve
implementable.
actions improve
accelerating
implementable.
Thethe
The
it. The
The model
it.results
results model
cultural
has been
obtained
shifthas
obtained been
neededfromtested
from toits
tested
fully
its
through
application
through three
expressthree
application
cases
thereflect
cases the
potential
reflect
studies
studies
the
and
and it
ofexpectations
Industry
expectationsit results
4.0.of
results
of
as effectively
companies‘
as effectively implementable.
managers accelerating
implementable. The
The results
theresults obtained
culturalobtained
shift needed from
from its
toits
fullyapplication reflect
express thereflect
application potential the
the expectations
Industry 4.0.of
ofexpectations of
companies‘ managers accelerating the cultural shift needed to fully express the potential of Industry 4.0.
© 2018, IFAC
companies‘
Keywords:
companies‘ managers
Data
managers accelerating
(International
productivity, Federation
accelerating the
the cultural
Performance cultural shift
shift needed
of Automatic Control)to
measurement,
needed fully
toHosting
data express
fullydrivenby Elsevier
express the
the potential
decision Ltd.making,
potential of
of Industry
All rights reserved.
Industry
Industry 4.0.
4.0,
4.0.
Keywords:
Information Data productivity, Performance measurement, data driven decision making, Industry 4.0,
Management.
Keywords:
Keywords: Data productivity, Performance
Performance measurement, data data driven decision decision making,
making, Industry 4.0,
Information Data
Keywords: productivity,
productivity, Performance measurement,
Management.
Data measurement, data driven driven decision making, Industry 4.0,
Industry 4.0,
Information Management.
Information Management.
Management.
Information 

 the management of the materials and products one. Indeed,
1. INTRODUCTION  the management
digitalization, of the materials
intelligence and connection and productsare theone. threeIndeed,
pillars
1. INTRODUCTION the
the management
management of
of the
the materials
materials and
and products
products one.
one. Indeed,
Indeed,
1. INTRODUCTION digitalization,
the
of management
the Industry intelligence
4.0 of the
that posesand
materials connection
the and
data as theare
products the threeactor
one.
principal pillars
Indeed, of
1. INTRODUCTION digitalization,
digitalization, intelligence
intelligence and
and connection
connection are
are the
the three
three pillars
pillars
The industrialization1.phenomena
INTRODUCTION that characterized different digitalization, of
this
of
the
the
Industry
new paradigm.
Industry
4.0
4.0
that
intelligence
that poses
posesand the
the data
connection
data as
as the
theare principal
the three
principal actor of
pillars
actor of
The industrialization of the Industry 4.0 that poses
poses the data
data as the principal actor of
historical
The
The centuries, phenomena
industrialization
industrialization has been that
phenomena
phenomena that
that
characterized
strongly
characterized
characterizedinfluenced different
by of
different
different this the
According
this
new
new
paradigm.
Industry to
paradigm. 4.0
the that
research the
reported asbythe the principal
Industryactor4.0of
historical
The centuries,
industrialization has
phenomena been strongly
that characterizedinfluenced by
different this
According
this new
new paradigm.
to
paradigm. the research reported by the Industry 4.0
technological
historical
historical progresses
centuries,
centuries, has
has called
been
beenIndustrial
strongly
strongly Revolutions.
influenced
influenced These
by
by Observatoryto
According ofthe Politecnico
research direported
Milano by in the 2017,Industry
companies 4.0
technological progresses called Industrial According to the research direported byin the Industry 4.0
historical
revolutions
technological
technological
centuries,
have alwayshas
progresses
progresses drive been
called
called
strongly
business
Industrial
Industrial toRevolutions.
influenced
drastic
Revolutions.
Revolutions.
These
increase by
in Observatory
These
These According
currently
Observatory toof
haveof thePolitecnico
researchknowledge
acquired
Politecnico di
Milano and
reported
Milano byin
2017,
the
mastery
2017,
companies
Industry of
companies 4.0
the
revolutions have always Observatory of Politecnico di Milano in 2017, companies
technological
productivity.
revolutions
revolutions The
have
have first wasdrive
progresses
always
always
called
drive
drive
business
Industrial
triggered by the
business
business
to
to
to
drastic
Revolutions.
introduction
drastic
drastic
increase
increase
increase
in
These
of the
in
in currently
Observatory
Industry
currently 4.0haveof acquired
Politecnico
paradigm.
have acquired knowledge
However, di
knowledge Milano
this and
in
knowledge
and mastery
2017, is
mastery stillof
companies the
linked
of the
productivity.
revolutions The
have first was triggered by the introduction of the currently have acquired knowledge and mastery of the
steam power,
productivity.
productivity. The
Thein always
the middle
first
first was
was
drive ofbusiness
triggered
triggeredtheby
by
to introduction
eighteenth
the
the
drasticcentury;
introduction
increase
of
of
in Industry
the
the currently
to 4.0
the theoretical
Industry 4.0 paradigm.
have acquired
concepts
paradigm. However,
knowledge
on
However, this knowledge
the importance
this and of
knowledge is
mastery
data
is still
and
still linked
of the
there
linked
steam power,
productivity. Thein the
first middle
was of
triggeredthe byeighteenth
the century;
introduction of the Industry
to the
Industry 4.0
theoretical
4.0 paradigm.
concepts
paradigm. However,
on
However, the this knowledge
importance
this knowledge of is
data
is still
and
still linked
there
linked
second
steam started
steam power,
power, in conventionally
in the
the middle
middle of in 1870
of the with
the eighteenth the establishment
eighteenth century; century; the the to are currently
the theoretical no tools
concepts that measure
on their productivity).
the importance of data and there
second started conventionally in 1870 with the to the theoretical concepts on
on the
the importance of data and
of data and there
steam
of
second
second
power,
electricity,
started
started
in the middle
chemical
conventionally
conventionallyproducts of
in
in
the eighteenth
and
1870
1870 crude
with
with oil, establishment
the
the
century;with
together
establishment
establishment
the are to
are currently
the theoretical
currently no
no tools
concepts
tools that
that measure
measure their
importance
their productivity).
productivity). there
of electricity,
second startedchemical
conventionallyproducts and
in 1870 crude
with the oil, together
establishment with are
are currently
currently no
no tools
tools that
that measure
measure their
their productivity).
productivity).
the
of
of changing
electricity,
electricity, concept
chemical
chemical of mass
products
products production;
and
and crude
crude oil,the third,
together one
with In this scenario, companies’ attention is more and more
the
of changing
electricity, concept
chemical of
themass
toproducts and crude oil,
production; bythe
oil, together
third,
together with
one
with In this scenario, companies’ attention is more and
century
the
the
century
later, referred
changing
changing
later,
concept
concept
referred to
of
of
the
effects
mass
mass
effects
provided
production;
production;
provided by
the
the
the
the
increasing
third,
third, one
one
increasing moving
In
In this
this towards
scenario,
scenario, data and towards
companies’
companies’ the information
attention
attention is
is more
more assetmore
and
and that
more
more
the
usagechanging
centuryof concept
electronics
later, referred andto of
IT
the mass
in production;
manufacturing
effects provided the
industry;
by the third, one moving
finally,
increasing In this towards
scenario, data and
companies’ towards the
attention information
is more asset
and that
more
century
usage oflater, referred
electronics andto the effects provided by the increasing they
moving
moving own. Indeed,
towards
towards data
datacompanies
and
and towards
towardsare aware
the
the of the
information
information importance
asset
asset of
that
that
century
in 2011,
usage oflater,
the referred
term
electronics to IT
Industrie
and IT in
the4.0
in manufacturing
effects provided by
was introduced
manufacturing industry;
atthe
industry; finally,
the increasing
Hannover
finally, they
moving own. Indeed,
towards datacompanies
and towards arebutaware
the of the they
information importance
asset of
that
usage
in of
2011, electronics
the term and
Industrie IT in
4.0 manufacturing
was introduced industry;
at the finally,
Hannover the
they
they data
own.
own. and their
Indeed,
Indeed, potentiality,
companies
companies are
are aware
awarecurrently
of
of the
the have
importance
importance not
of
of
usage of electronics and IT in manufacturing industry; finally, the
they data
own. and their
Indeed, potentiality,
companies but
arebutawarecurrently
of they have not
Messe
in
in 2011,
2011,
Messe
inthe
in
Germany.
the term
term
Germany.
Industrie
Industrie 4.0
4.0 was
was introduced
introduced at
at the
the Hannover
Hannover metrics
the
the data
data toand
andmeasure
their
their the efficiency
potentiality,
potentiality, but and thethevalue
currently
currently
importance
they
they that
have
have
of
their
not
not
in 2011,inthe
Industry
Messe 4.0term
is Industrie
Germany. “a vision4.0ofwas theintroduced
future ofat Industry the Hannover and metrics
the data toandmeasure
their the efficiency
potentiality, but and the
currently value
they that
have their
not
Messe
Industryin Germany.
4.0 is information
metrics to
metrics asset
to measure
measure the is giving or
the efficiency can
efficiency and give
and theto them.
the value In addition,
that their
value that their
Messe
Industry
in Germany.
Manufacturing
Industry 4.0
4.0 is
isin “a
“a
“a
vision
which
vision
vision
of
Information
of
of
the
the
the
future
Technologies
future
future
of
of
of
Industry
Industry
Industry
and
are going
and
and information
metrics
before
information the asset
to measure
current
asset is
is giving
the or
efficiencycan
data-revolution,
giving or can give
and the
give to
thethem.
to valueIn
value
them. In addition,
that their
of their
addition,
Manufacturing
Industry 4.0 isin “awhich
visionInformation
of the Technologies
future of are
Industry going
and information
before
information the asset
current
asset is
is giving or can
data-revolution,
giving or can give
give to
the
to them.
value
them. In
In addition,
of their
addition,
to boost competitiveness
Manufacturing
Manufacturing in
in which
which and efficiency
Information
Information by
Technologies
Technologies interconnecting
are
are going
going information
before the asset
current has been not proper valuated,
data-revolution, the because
value of oftheir
the
to boost competitiveness
Manufacturing in(data,
which and efficiency
Information by
Technologies interconnecting
are Value before
going information
before the current
theofasset
current has data-revolution,
been not proper
data-revolution, the
valuated,
thelimited value
because
value of
of of their
the
their
every
to
to resource
boost
boost competitiveness
competitiveness peopleand
and and machinery)
efficiency
efficiency by
by in the
interconnecting
interconnecting difficulties
information set
asset a proper
has been measure
not proper and the
valuated, attention
because of of
the
every
to resource
boost (data,
competitiveness people and
and 2017). machinery)
efficiency in the
by interconnecting Value information
difficulties
information asset
of set
asset aahas been
proper
has not
not proper
beenmeasure proper and valuated,
the
valuated,limited because of
of the
attention
because of
the
Chain”
every
every (Politecnico
resource
resource di Milano
(data,
(data, people
people and
and machinery)
machinery) in
in the
the Value
Value top managers
difficulties of to
setthis asset.
proper This
measure research
and has
the the
limited aim to provide
attention of
Chain”
every (Politecnico
resource di
(data, Milano
people 2017).
and machinery)is inthethecardinal Value top difficulties
managers
difficulties of
of set
to aa proper
setthis asset.
proper measure
This
measure and
and the
research has
the limited
the
limited aim attention
to provide
attention of
of
The
Chain”
Chain”interconnection
(Politecnico
(Politecnico di
di between
Milano
Milano the resources
2017).
2017). a
top structure
managers measure
to this of
asset. data
This productivity,
research has answering
the aim to to
providethe
The
Chain”interconnection
(Politecnico di between
Milano the
2017). resources is the cardinal top
a
top managers
structure
managers to this
measure
to this asset.
of
asset. This
data
This research
productivity,
research has
has the aim
answering
the aim to
to provide
to
providethe
element
The
The of this
interconnection
interconnection revolution
between
between and
the
the the exchange
resources
resources is
is of
the data
cardinalis aquestions: What’s mean that data is productive?
a productivity, Howto much
element
The ofthethis
newrevolution
interconnection between and the
the with exchange
resources is the of
the cardinal
data
cardinalis aa structure
structure
questions:
measure
measure
What’s mean
of
of data
data
of that productivity,
is
answering
answeringHow to
much
the
the
becoming
element
element
becoming
of
ofthe
this
this
new
flow
flow
to manage
revolution
revolution
to
and
and
manage
the
the
with
the same
exchange
exchange
the same
relevance
of
of data
data
relevance
of
is
is
of
structure
aquestions:
data
questions:
measure
can produce
What’s
What’s value
mean
mean for aaaa productivity,
data
that
that
data
company?
data
data is
is
productive?
productive?
productive?
answeringHow
How
to
much
much
the
element
becomingofthethethis
newrevolution
flow to to manageand with
manage the exchange
the same of data of
same relevance
relevance is aquestions:
data can produce
What’s value
mean for
that a a company?
data is productive? How much
becoming new flow with the
becoming the new flow to manage with the same relevance of aaa data of data can
can produce value value for aa company?
company?
data can produce
produce value for for a company?
2405-8963 © 2018, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 19
Peer review©under
Copyright 2018 responsibility
IFAC of International Federation of Automatic
19 Control.
Copyright © 2018 IFAC
10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.228
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 19
19
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 19
IFAC INCOM 2018
20
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Giovanni Miragliotta et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 19–24
The structure of the paper is the following: in the first part, all
the topics on which the research is based are presented;
afterwards the definition of data productivity is introduced and
its related assumptions; then the procedure to calculate the data
productivity measure is presented; finally, there are the main
insights of the model application.
2. LITTERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Industry 4.0 and Data
Data is one of the main pillars of Industry 4.0, the 4th
generation of manufacturing that uses concepts such as cyber-
physical systems, virtual copies of real equipment and
processes, and decentralized decision making to create a smart
factory or “Factory 4.0”.
Within the Industry 4.0 world, big data impact can be
summarized in six Cs: connection (sensors and networks);
cloud (computing and on-demand); cyber- (model and
memory); content/Context (meaning and correlation);
community (sharing and collaboration); customization
(personalization and value). In this new paradigm, a key role
is played by the Industrial Internet of Things (IoT). IoT allows
companies to capture data about process and products more
quickly, to have global visibility on the overall supply chain,
to work with more efficient and intelligence operations that,
thanks to autonomous data collection and analysis, allows on-
the-fly decision making (IDC Digital Universe 2014). The
effective extraction and use of information embedded in the
data have become the next frontier to drive innovation,
competitiveness, and growth in manufacturing, as highlighted
by McKinsey in a series of studies see McKinsey, 2011, 2015.
2.2 Data versus Information
“Data can be defined as a symbol, sign, or raw fact”, see
Mingers, 2006. Usually in literature the concept of data is
associated or put in contrast with the information one. So far,
two different definition of information are present:
1. information is “data that has been processed in some way
to make it useful [..] information can be objectively define
relatively to a particular task or decision”, see Mingers, 1996.
This definition of information implies that the concept of data
is objective.
2. “Information equals data plus meaning”, see Checkland et
al., 2000. This definition implies that information is subjective,
from a set of data different information can be created.
Information is subjective because depends on the receiver and
on the context in which the message is conveyed see Jumarie,
1990. Information cannot be viewed as an independent entity
because has attributes and reflects the intention of the sender
and the receiver, see Oppenheim et al., 2003. Different
observers may generate different information from the same
data given their differing values, beliefs, and expectations, see
Lewis, 1993.
2.3 Data and Information Asset
During the late 1990s theories of knowledge asset and their
contribution to organisational wealth become popular together
20
with the definition of information as an asset. The role of
information as an asset was introduced in 1994 by the Hawley
committee, which define information asset as: “data that is or
should be documented and that has value or potential value”.
This concept, in addition, treated information like traditional
assets such as plant and machinery, see S.H Black et al., 1982.
Information asset is defined also as “the ability to provide data
and information to users with the appropriate levels of
accuracy, timeliness, reliability, security, confidentiality,
connectivity, access and the ability to tailor these in response
to changing business needs and directions”, see Mithas et al.,
2011. “Value should be assigned not only to data but also to
the system allowing for its exploitation”, see Ahituv, 1989.
Because Information Asset is an intangible asset it is difficult
to measure, see Evans et al., 2015.
Data can be in the form of structured, semi-structured, or
unstructured data. There are several data types such as Master
data, that provides the most business relevant information
about a product, a supplier, a customer, etc. or Transactional
data, that describes the event that happens in a moment
referring to one or more master data element. These two types
of data together with Tacit Knowledge can be consider the
Information Asset of a company. Tacit Knowledge is hidden
in human brains and refers to communication among people
who share their knowledge and observations, in both formal
and informal ways.
2.4 Measuring productivity in a manufacturing company
Productivity is commonly defined as a ratio of a volume
measure of output to a volume measure of input use. While
there is no disagreement on this general notion, productivity
literature and its various applications proposes different
measure of productivity, see OECD Manual, 2001.
Looking at the Efficiency aspect of productivity, a production
process is operating in full efficiency, in an engineering sense,
if it achieved the maximum amount of output that is physically
achievable with current technology, and given a fixed amount
of inputs, see Diewert E. W. et al., 1999.
Manufacturing companies are often interested in measure
productivity in terms of efficiency. The Overall Equipment
Effectiveness (OEE) measure gives a comprehensive response
to this need, underling different losses of the manufacturing
process under analysis. Measuring OEE is, indeed, a
manufacturing best practice that provides insights on where it
is necessary to act to improve the productivity. The most
significant way to calculate the OEE index is based on three
factors: Availability, Performance, and Quality.
2.5 Data value and Productivity
In literature there are not researches that provides to managers
and academics a metrics or a model that allow them to measure
the Data productivity. The main insights coming from the
literature on the theme are:
1) some companies are aware of the potentially of the data
they own, but are not able to exploit them see Ladley, 2010;
2) data-driven companies better perform in terms of
productivity than other companies, see McAfee et al., 2012;
3) companies have, very often, other priorities than improving
the information asset, simply because it is not an accountant
 IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Giovanni Miragliotta et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 19–24 21
voice. Taylor refers to the potential value of information asset,
a concept that does not exist in traditional accounting, so that
will always result in no value being attributed to information
for financial reporting purposes, see Taylor, 1986.
Early studies on the value of information are considered
together by Ahituv in 1989. He considered 4 different way to
assess this value (quantitative, normative, realistic, perceived)
concluding that each method presents different limits and none
of them give a unique indicator of the data productivity of a
company, see Aihtuv, 1989. Strassmann (Strassmann 2004)
defined a quantitative measure of the Information
productivity: the Information Productivity Index (IPI), see
Strassmann, 2004. However, this measure is based on financial
indicators and accounting voices that do not permit to measure
the productivity of a single data element, because of their
aggregated nature.
3. METHODOLOGY
The model was built up by joining personal researches together
with an empirical research phases from three interviews with
companies’ managers, as case studies. Face-to-face interviews
were useful not to force interviewees to provide punctual
responses, expressing their ideas freely. This provides to the
research original points of view that were very useful to design
a comprehensive model. The companies selected belonging to
manufacturing industry and have already implemented
projects on Industry 4.0. After the first phase of model design,
the issue of measurability was approached. In particular, an
analysis of different possibility to measure each characteristics
of the model has been fundamental for its correct application.
The validation of the model, in terms of its measurability and
its capability to correctly measure the Information Asset
productivity, comes from the successful application of the
model to the three companies object of the first empirical
phase.
4. DATA PRODUCTIVITY
4.1 Data productivity and closed themes
To correctly address the research questions, an essential
preliminary step is the definition of the borders of this research
analysis (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Data productivity’s borders of analysis representation
Master data management (MDM) incorporates business
applications, Information Management methods, and data
management tools to implement the policies, procedures, and
21
infrastructures that support the capture, integration, and
subsequent shared use accurate, timely, consistent, and
complete master data”, see Loshin, 2009.
Data, properly managed and monitored, in the master data
system allow companies to rely on a unified and coherent data
asset for all their applications, thanks to consistent and high-
quality information, see Loshin, 2009.
The distinction among the concepts of knowledge,
information, and data has often been addressed by researchers
and academics. As previously presented, a commonly view
considers: data as raw numbers and facts; information as
processed data; knowledge as authenticated information, see
Dretske, 1981, Machlup et al., 1983, Vance, 1997. Indeed,
knowledge is defined as information possessed in the mind of
individuals: it is personalized information related to facts,
procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations, and
judgments.
Knowledge management refers to identifying and leveraging
the collective knowledge in an organization to help the
organization compete, see Von Krogh, 1998. Knowledge
management is purported to increase innovativeness and
responsiveness, see Hackbarth, 1998, Alavi et al., 2001.
Data protection theme is present in literature and in companies
since the origin of the data itself. Indeed, since data present in
companies are often sensitive, their content should be properly
protected. Technical security of data regards whether and how
the data is secured against possible incidents of different
nature: components failure, software bugs, hacking, fraud or
theft.
Data maintenance theme is related to physical storage. In
particular, software solutions and database can become faster
and more performant if they are subjected to the proper
maintenance. Indeed, to make use of the technical innovations,
systems should be up to date and be maintained properly, see
Spruit et al., 2015.
4.2 Data productivity definition
The lack of a measurement tool by which companies can
understand their current level in the management of
Information asset and of data, heart of the Industry 4.0, is a
gap present in the literature. To correctly address this gap, a
structured research was essential to define the boundaries of
the theme under analysis and to define the three main pillars
of the “Data Productivity model” developed: data,
productivity, decision-making process.
4.3 Data productivity and model’s assumptions
The aim of the model is to measure the productivity of data
and Information Asset related to a specific process selected for
the analysis. The data pillar it is presented as the primary
element of the model.
Looking at the object of the analysis, this research does a step
aside from the research work conducted since now, looking
back at the data per se, not transformed into information nor
into knowledge.
Data are now present in factories in a huge quantity and it is
possible to combine, interpret them in several different ways
for different purposes. For this, the entity of analysis is not a
IFAC INCOM 2018
22
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Giovanni Miragliotta et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 19–24

peculiar information, a peculiar transformation of the data, but making process, not considering if they are or not actually
it is the data itself. available. Of these data, a portion is selected based on the ones
In the model proposed the focus it is on a specific decision- actual available to the decision maker from external or internal
making process. It is possible, indeed to notice that focusing company’s sources of data. The cause of this first loss of data
on a specific process allows the identification of the causes of is the absence of appropriated IT and storage infrastructure
poor performance of the Information Asset in that specific (e.g. sensors). This is often related to poor management, that
context. In other words, a metrics on the overall performance fails in a proper ideation, design and implementation of these
of the Information Asset productivity would drive managers solutions.
not to understand easily the result obtained and which type of
actions are needed to be taken and the related priorities to
correctly improve.
Therefore, after the selection of a process to analyse, all the
data of interest for the process are identified and at the same
time also the tools that help the decision maker to take the
decision are selected. For this, to assess the Information Asset
Productivity of the company it is necessary to apply the model
to more than one decision-making process, looking at different
areas of applications.

The starting point for the development of the Data

Productivity model, is the parallelism with the OEE efficiency Fig. 2. Data productivity’s Availability factor representation
metrics in manufacturing. This efficiency definition of
productivity, express by the concept of output/input, can be The Data Quality factor selects the data that are “timely”,
applied to the productive field but also to the digital one, that “completed and correct” (Fig. 3). Form the generated data,
considers data the primary feed of all processes. Therefore, the only the ones that are characterized by a correct frequency of
main question that guided the model building was: how the collection are considered. In other worlds, the ones that
Information Asset of a company can be designed as a respond as rapidly as required by the user or necessitated by
productive resource highlighting the “losses” that occur during the process, allowing the decision maker to work with reliable
the decision-making process. data. The data that are not timely because of a too slow data
The OEE metrics, is often computed in relation to a specific collection are reported as losses. From the timely data, the
machinery/process/produced product. In this way, indeed, it is complete and correct ones refer to those that do not include
possible to analyse the causes of low efficiency in details, on wrong elements and are composed by all the relevant
the contrary this is almost impossible if the overall plant is attributes. Each data can be evaluated in terms of percentage
considered. Looking to a specific element allows to identify of completeness and correctness.
also the smaller losses and their causes that are difficult to
capture in an aggregate analysis.
The structure followed by this research is a pure comparison
between OEE factors and the Information Asset characteristics
coming from the literature, by adopting the path of normative
model. Indeed, taking the OEE factors (by OEE industry
standard) as starting point, the model was devised assuming
that also the Information Asset characteristics (the one related
to the decision-making process) follows a scheme similar to
the OEE metrics one. That means, the model was designed by
applying the same logic of the OEE metrics based on the three
main factors: availability, quality and performance and a series
of Information Asset characteristics coming from the
literature.
Like the OEE, the Data Productivity Index is composed by
Data Availability, Data quality, DSS performance, as shown Fig. 3. Data productivity’s Quality factor representation
in the following formula (1):
The DSS Performance factor refers to the measurement of how
the data are managed by the decision support system and the
𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 ∗ decision-maker in the process. In particular, “valorized” data
𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸𝑸 ∗ 𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 (1) refers to the set of the generated data that are managed by
algorithms (Fig. 4). In this case the losses are related to the
weakness of the algorithms applied to the data. Therefore, after
The Data Availability factor has the aim to identify all the data
the identification of the data that are object of algorithms, an
at the disposal of the decision maker and it is composed by the
evaluation of their performance determines the percentage of
“interesting data” and the “generated data” (Fig. 2). The
loss because of a not proper exploitation of the data. The “On
interesting data are the ones that are of interest for the decision-
time” data characteristic is related to the data that arrive in a

22
 IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Giovanni Miragliotta et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 19–24 23
due time useful for the decision-making process because of
performing and fast algorithms. The “integrated” data are
those supported by an infrastructure that collects data coming
from different sources in a single platform in order to ease their
consultancy for the decision maker. The losses are identified
by the data that are not integrated with each other. The data
presented in the decision-making process through indicators
are called “aggregated” data. The losses in this case are related
to the difficulties in using data without looking at summary
indicators especially because of the usually restricted time
availability to make the decision or the presence of several data
to look at. Then the “used” data are those used, at the end, by
the decision maker. These further distinction is based on the
bounded rationality concept that indicates the limited
rationality of individuals in taking decisions, highlighting their
cognitive limitations combined by the time availability. The
data losses for this reason are more numerous in case of a no
structured decision-making process or a not supporting
software or tools for taking the decision.
Fig. 4. Data productivity’s Performance factor representation
In addition, the model is contextualized in the Supply Chain of
the company, because the entity of the turbulence in the
decision-making process is concordance with the relevance of
data and Information asset value. This implies that the result
obtaining by the model application as to be contextualized by
the company looking at the process analysed. There are
different models in literature that provide indications on how
to assess the risk of a company. The Supply Chain risk
assessment considered for this dissertation is based on the
assignment of a grade based on the level of impact and
probability of occurrence of each risk driver impacting in the
Supply Chain. The risk drivers proposed are adapted from
Chopra and Sodhi and are divided in 8 macro areas: disruption,
delay, IT systems, forecasting & communication, intellectual
propriety (IP), legal and economics, procurement, inventory,
see Chopra et al., 2004.
. Problems and Approaches. Proceedings of the International
A matrix that combine the risk drivers with the main decision-
making processes of a company allows to obtain a measure of
the risk level for each process. This consequently implies the
possibility to evaluate the relevance of obtaining a good result
by the Data Productivity index.
23
The results obtained by the model applications need to be
contextualized looking at the analysed company, the selected
decision-making process, the overall Data Productivity Index
result and its specific factors (Data Availability, Data Quality
and DSS Performance). To clearly present these insights the
model developed has been considered together with the
structure of the decision-making process from the model
“Thinking first” presented by Simon. This model considers the
decision-making process composed by five phases:
intelligence, design, choice, implementation, control and
review. Only the first three are the ones considered for the
model application, because the scope of the model is to
measure the Data and Information Asset productivity to assess
their level of goodness for taking a decision. The three factors
of the Data Productivity Index have an impact on all of these
three phases, but with different impact. The intelligence phase
is characterized by a more predominant importance of the Data
Availability and the Data Quality; the design one considers as
the most relevant the “valorized” data and the “On time” and
“integrated” data characteristics; the choice one, instead,
needs “aggregated” and the “used” data characteristics.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Because of the novelty of the model proposed, it is difficult to
establish the goodness of the quantitative result obtained by
the model application to the three case studies, that range from
40% to 60%, but they are in line with the expectations of
managers. In addition, the result obtained by an OEE best in
class company is about 85%, therefore the numbers obtained
reflect: the novelty of the measure and the needed path that
companies must follow to improve these results; the
organizational, technological and cultural changes that
companies must embrace to better manage data, Information
Asset, and decision-making process. The aim of the model is
to assess the AS-IS situation of the Information Asset of the
company related to a specific process, for this a comparison
between the same metrics after some projects that has the aim
to improve the information asset management is also value
added. Because of the novelty of the model and the fact that
the presented applications are the first ones, it is possible to
improve the model working on the modality of applications,
on the involvement of the actors, on the extension of the model
application also to other processes. In addition, it is possible to
refine the characteristics investigated by the model with other
experts’ opinions or by insights coming from more
applications. Overall, it is possible to conclude that the model
posits a first approach to measure Information Asset
productivity, from its applications relevant insights emerged
that helps companies to assess their AS-IS performance on
these elements and to identify pattern of improvements.
REFERENCES
Ahituv N. (1989). Assessing the value of information:
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 1989, 45.
Alavi M., Leidner D.E. (2001). Review: Knowledge
management and knowledge management systems:
IFAC INCOM 2018
24
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Giovanni Miragliotta et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 19–24

Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly,

25 (1), 107-136.
Black S.H, Marchand D. (1982). Assessing the value of
information in organisations: a challenge for the 1980s. The
Information Society, 1, 191-225.
Checkland P, Scholes J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in
Action. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Chopra, S., Sodhi M. (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-
chain breakdown. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1).
Mingers J. (1996). An Evaluation of Theories of Information
with Regard to the Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of
Information Systems. Systemic Practice, 9(3), 187-209.
Mithas, Sunil, Ramasubbu, Narayan, Sambamurthy V.
(2011). How Information Management Capability Influences
Firm Performance. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 237-256.
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development (2001). Measuring Productivity. OECD
Publications, Paris.

Diewert Erwin W., Lawrence D. (1999). Measuring New
Zealand’s Productivity, Treasury Working Paper, 99(5).
Dretske F. I. (1981). Knowledge and the Flow of Information.
MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Evans N., Price J. (2015). Information Asset Management
capability: The Role of the CIO. Twenty-first Americas
Conference on Information Systems, 2016.
Oppenheim C., Stenson J., Wilson R.M.S. (2003). Studies on
information as an asset I: definitions. Journal of Information
Science, 29 (3), 159–166.
Politecnico di Milano (2017). Industria 4.0: la grande
occasione per l'Italia. Observatory Industry 4.0, Milano.
PwC (2016). PwC’s 2016 Global Industry 4.0 Survey:
Building the Digital Enterprise. PwC, London.

Hackbarth G. (1998). The Impact of Organizational Memory Spruit M., Pietzka K. (2015). MD3M: The master data
on IT Systems. Proceedings of the Fourth Americas management maturity model. Computers in Human Behavior,
conference on Information Systems, 588-590. 51, 1068-1076.

Infor publication (2015). Big Data in manufacturing: A
compass for growth. Infor, New York.
Jumarie, Guy. (1990). Relative Information: Theories and
Applications. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin.
Ladley J. (2010). Making Enterprise Information
Management (EIM) Work for Business. Elsevier, Burlington.
Lewis, P. J. (1993). Linking soft systems methodology with
data-focused information systems development. Information
Systems Journal, July, 169-186.
Loshin D. (2009). Master Data Management. Elsevier,
Burlington.
Strassmann P.A. (2004). Defining and Measuring
Information Productivity. The Information Economics Press,
New Canaan.
Taylor R.S. (1986). Value-added Processes in Information
Systems. Praeger, Westport.
Vance D. M. (1997). Information, knowledge and wisdom:
The epistemic hierarchy and computer-based information
systems. Proceedings of the 1997 America’s Conference on
Information Systems.
Von Krogh G. (1998). Care in Knowledge Creation.
California Management Review, 40(3), 133-153.

Machlup F., Mansfield U. (1983). The Study of Information:

Interdisciplinary Messages. Wiley-Interscience, New York.

McAfee A., Brynjolfsson E. (2012). Big data: The

Management Revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90 (10),
1-9.

McKinsey Global Institute (2015). The Internet of Things:

Mapping the Value Beyond the Hype. McKinsey &
Company, New York.

McKinsey Global Institute (2011). Big data: The next

frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity.
McKinsey & Company, New York.

Mingers J. (2006). Realizing Systems Thinking: Knowledge

and Action in Management Science. Springer, Berlin.

24