The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0972-7981.htm

Industry 4.0 adoption key factors: Industry 4.0

adoption key
an empirical study on factors

manufacturing industry
Sanjiv Narula 697
School of Management, BML Munjal University, Gurgaon, India
Received 24 March 2020
Surya Prakash and Maheshwar Dwivedy Revised 16 July 2020
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Accepted 16 July 2020

School of Engineering and Technology, BML Munjal University, Gurgaon, India

Vishal Talwar
School of Management, BML Munjal University, Gurgaon, India, and
Surendra Prasad Tiwari
Quality Growth Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, India

Abstract
Purpose – This research aims to outline the key factors responsible for industry 4.0 (I4.0) application in
industries and establish a factor stratification model.
Design/methodology/approach – This article identifies the factor pool responsible for I4.0 from the extant
literature. It aims to identify the set of key factors for the I4.0 application in the manufacturing industry and
validate, classify factor pool using appropriate statistical tools, for example, factor analysis, principal
component analysis and item analysis.
Findings – This study would shed light on critical factors and subfactors for implementing I4.0 in
manufacturing industries from the factor pool. This study would shed light on critical factors and subfactors
for implementing I4.0 in manufacturing industries. Strategy, leadership and culture are found key elements of
transformation in the journey of I4.0. Additionally, design and development in the digital twin, virtual testing
and simulations were also important factors to consider by manufacturing firms.
Research limitations/implications – The proposed I4.0 factor stratification model will act as a starting
point while designing strategy, adopting readiness index for I4.0 and creating a roadmap for I4.0 application in
manufacturing. The I4.0 factors identified and validated in this paper will act as a guide for policymakers,
researchers, academicians and practitioners working on the implementation of Industry 4.0. This work
establishes a solid groundwork for developing an I4.0 maturity model for manufacturing industries.
Originality/value – The existing I4.0 literature is critically examined for creating a factor pool that further
presented to experts to ensure sufficient rigor and comprehensiveness, particularly checking the relevance of
subfactors for the manufacturing sector. This work is an attempt to identify and validate major I4.0 factors that
can impact its mass adoption that is further empirically tested for factor stratification.
Keywords Industry 4.0, Manufacturing industry, Key factors, Principal component analysis, Cluster analysis
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Since the 1990s, various technologies slowly and indubitably have been facilitating new
business models, enhancing their effectiveness and efficiency of resources, while looking to
cut costs in manufacturing even in areas involving highly customizable products (Wang et al.,
2017). This has laid the foundation for an upcoming future path in which smart industrial
units, intelligent machinery and networked processes are carried together to encourage better
Journal of Advances in
Management Research
Vol. 17 No. 5, 2020
Author want to thank industry and academic persons who was involved in this research directly or pp. 697-725
indirectly. Their inputs at various stages of this project are well appreciated. Author also want to thank © Emerald Publishing Limited
0972-7981
anonymous reviewers for their valuable contributions. DOI 10.1108/JAMR-03-2020-0039
JAMR industrial output, flexibility and profitability (Kagermann, 2015). Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is at the
17,5 cusp of drastically changing how companies function at present. High-tech advancements
have compelled intense surges in industrial yield since the advent of the industrial revolution.
To put it concisely, I4.0 is a concoction of numerous ultramodern and radical concepts and
technologies, which have the prospect of transmuting the manufacturing setup in the 21st
century (Frank et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019).
It is quite evident that in the current business environment disruptive technologies of
698 I4.0 hold the key to making smart facilities that are highly efficient and digitally integrated
(Brettel et al., 2014; Moeuf et al., 2018). What remains worrisome is that while businesses do
recognize the prospects of I4.0, many are not even acquainted with key factors responsible
for its implementation. This has led to a delayed and uneven speed of transformation across
industries, regardless of their country of origin (Erol et al., 2016; M€
uller et al., 2018). There
are numerous views on how companies look at the I4.0, its relevance to select sector or
business. There is great disagreement among experts on what can be the critical factors,
technologies, tools and methods that can change their business forever. Moreover, in the
literature, several studies have presented set of related factors of I4.0 and associated terms
(Ganzarain and Errasti, 2016; Lichtblau et al., 2015; Jones and Pimdee, 2017; Saucedo et al.,
2018; Colli et al., 2019; Trotta and Garengo, 2019). The factors responsible for the I4.0
application should be empirically tested for creating a wide framework or adoption model
(Leyh et al., 2016).
This has led us to believe that there is a need for empirically tested factors for the
application of I4.0 in the manufacturing sector so that policymakers can devise an industry-
specific framework for further applications. This possible shortcoming motivates and creates
the necessary landscape for the present study. I4.0 technologies and their factor pool are
examined in Section 2, followed by the presentation of research methodology in Section 3. The
expert survey with industry leaders and analysis of survey data for factor classification using
appropriate statistical tools are carried out in Section 4. The conclusion and future research
direction are summarized in Section 5.

2. Literature review
Industry 4.0 is a technological revolution that took practical shape in 2015 (Kagermann, 2015).
It is being led by a set of disruptive Internet technologies that have emphatically redefined the
way businesses create, form, deliver and service products (Liao et al., 2017). I4.0 technologies
have been helping manufacturers to increase proficiency, decrease downtime, lower costs,
distinguish themselves in the market and improve service, delivery and quality (Liao et al.,
2017; Jones and Pimdee, 2017). An I4.0 implementing organization uses information and
communication technologies (ICT) to realize real-time digital transformation of all vertical
and horizontal business processes, while fully integrating the total value creation and
delivery systems (Sanders et al., 2016; Satoglu et al., 2018; Kamble et al., 2020). The cyber–
physical system (CPS) as a whole achieves smart automation using the nine technological
drivers mentioned in Table 1.
The CPS interlinks real entities and processes with simulated information processing at all
levels through open and interconnected wireless networks (Uhlemann et al., 2017; Satoglu
et al., 2018; Kamble et al., 2020). It monitors manufacturing processes in real time using
artificial intelligence-based sensors to instantly make decisions, which are then
autonomously implemented, whereby direct human intervention at the plant level is kept
at the bare minimum (Bartodziej, 2017; Liao et al., 2017; Satoglu et al., 2018). A smart factory,
on the other hand, is a modular, structured plant wherein the CPS monitors and controls the
entire physical process (Golan et al., 2020). The CPS integrates industrial Internet of things
I4.0 technology drivers
Advanced robotics
Autonomous industrial robots that cooperate and with
human workers
Additive manufacturing
3D printers used for making design prototypes,
production components and spare parts on demand
Augmented reality
Use of digital reality to aid standard operating
procedures (SOPs), complex assembly, maintenance,
expert help, quality assurance and logistics
Simulation
Modeling and simulation-based design and
development of new products, services, production
systems and training
Vertical and horizontal system integration
Vertical integration of all aspects of the manufacturing
execution system within the organization
Horizontal integration of data across the complete
value chain
Industrial Internet of things
Multidirectional digital communication between
system-wide networked machines, equipment,
products and customers
Cloud computing
Manages, in real time, huge quantities of data in an
open system as well as real-time digital communication
exchange for optimizing all aspects of production
Cybersecurity
Management of security of digital communication in a
large, integrated inter- and intracompany system that
includes operations, customers and connected smart
products
Big data analytics
Large-scale evaluation of data as generated within the
plant and picked up across the supply chain. Enables
real-time decision-making in all aspects of
manufacturing
Citation
Industry 4.0
adoption key
Almada-Lobo (2016), Liao et al. (2017), Hofmann and factors
R€usch (2017), Ghobakhloo (2018), Moeuf et al. (2018),
Koh et al. (2019), Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020)
Wu et al. (2015), Holmstr€om et al. (2016), Sanders et al.
(2016), Hofmann and R€ usch (2017), Qi and Tao
(2018), Frank et al. (2019), Kamble et al., 2020, Koh 699
et al. (2019), Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020)
Almada-Lobo (2016), Liao et al. (2017), Hofmann and
R€usch (2017), Ghobakhloo (2018), Frank et al. (2019),
Kamble et al. (2020), Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020)
Almada-Lobo (2016), Sanders et al. (2016), Uhlemann
et al. (2017), Ghobakhloo (2018), Frank et al. (2019),
Kamble et al. (2020), Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020)
Arnold et al. (2016), Barreto et al. (2017), Liao et al.
(2017), Qi and Tao (2018), Kamble et al. (2020),
Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020)
Theorin et al. (2017), Caggiano (2018), Ghobakhloo
(2018), Moeuf et al. (2018), Koh et al. (2019), Stentoft
and Rajkumar (2020)
Wu et al. (2015), Arnold et al. (2016), Satoglu et al.
(2018), Qi and Tao (2018), Frank et al. (2019), Kamble
et al., 2020, Koh et al. (2019), Stentoft and Rajkumar
(2020)
Arnold et al. (2016), Barreto et al. (2017), Liao et al.
(2017), Qi and Tao (2018), Stentoft and Rajkumar
(2020)
Wu et al. (2015), Almada-Lobo (2016), Arnold et al.
(2016), Liao et al. (2017), Reis and Gins (2017), Qi and
Tao (2018), Frank et al. (2019), Kamble et al., 2020, Table 1.
Koh et al. (2019), Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020) Technology drivers of
Industry 4.0

(IIoT) and big data and analytics with the current traditional systems and creates a smart
factory and smart supply chain (Kamble et al., 2020), which are explained in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows the conceptual view of real-time connected CPS deployment in a smart
factory and its supply chain resulting in real-time integration of the enterprise, operations,
supply chain, services. Machines and equipment within an intelligent factory use Internet
technologies to continuously interact wirelessly with each other and the workforce across the
global supply chains, including the consumers and other smart products (Barreto et al., 2017;
Qi and Tao, 2018; Kamble et al., 2020; Prakash et al., 2020). Smart factories have brought about
a paradigm shift across the production system due to real-time digitally connected systems
that use I4.0 technologies such as IIoT, augmented reality cloud computing and big data
analytics–based decision-making (Liao et al., 2017; Caggiano, 2018; Satoglu et al., 2018; Frank
et al., 2019), all of which are explained in Section 2.1.
JAMR
17,5

700

Figure 1.
Cyber–physical
systems–enabled
smart factory and
smart supply chain

2.1 Industry 4.0 technologies and associated factors

A comprehensive literature review and citation (shown in Table 1) were conducted to identify
the nine technological drivers enabling I4.0. The implementation of I4.0 technologies is a
critical strategic choice, and before making such a significant decision, establishments have
to evaluate their readiness and identify significant factors associated with its implementation
(Schumacher et al., 2016). Table 2 shows the citation table of I4.0 factors identified by a
comprehensive literature review of existing I4.0 maturity models.
Lichtblau et al. (2015) proposed the readiness model, wherein organizations were classified
under three groups comprising newcomers, learners and leaders; further, this classification
involved six key factors, including smart products, smart factory intelligent operations, data-
driven services, I4.0- based strategy along with the organization in itself and its employees.
Schumacher et al. (2016) proposed nine factors under the I4.0 framework, out of which four act
as facilitators, while the other five are organization-specific enablers. The nine factors include
customers, products, technology, operations, leadership, strategy, governance, people and
lastly, culture. Leyh et al. (2016) proposed a maturity model “system integration maturity
model industry 4.0 (SIMMI 4.0)” for categorizing software landscape and enterprise-wide
information technology, highlighting on I4.0 technologies. It aimed to facilitate the
classification of the information technology (IT) system landscape, with specific emphasis
on I4.0 requirements. Stefan et al. (2018) proposed organization, people and technology
aspects in their Industry 4.0 migration model to enable organizations to changeover toward
 Author
Ganzarain Jones Trotta
Lichtblau and Jung Erol Leyh Gill and G€okalp Lee and Weber Canetta Saucedo Stefan Gracel and Bandara Machado and Pacchini Colli
et al. Errasti, et al. et al. Schumacher et al. VanBoskirk et al. et al. Pimdee et al. et al. et al. et al. Łebkowski et al. et al. Garengo et al. et al.
Code I4.0 factors (2015) (2016) (2016) (2016) et al. (2016) (2016) (2016) (2017) (2017) (2017) (2017) (2018) (2018) (2018) (2018) (2019) (2019) (2019) (2019) (2019)

A Vision √ √ √
B Strategy/ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Leadership
C Organization/ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Human resource/
Culture/
Competency
D Knowledge √
management
E Robotics/ √ √
Process
automation
F Horizontal and √ √ √ √ √ √
vertical
integration/
Connectivity
G Digital/Smart √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
factory/
Operations/
Processes/
Applications
H Analytics √
I Cybersecurity √
J Data-driven √ √ √ √ √ √
services
K Documents/ √
Standards and
governance
L Communication
and
collaboration
M Technology √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
(Information
technology/
Cloud/IOT/Big
data/Artificial
intelligence/
Augmented
reality/
Additive
manufacturing)

(continued )
Industry 4.0

701
factors
adoption key

Industry 4.0
Table 2.

assessment framework
 17,5

702
JAMR

Table 2.
Author
Ganzarain Jones Trotta
Lichtblau and Jung Erol Leyh Gill and G€okalp Lee and Weber Canetta Saucedo Stefan Gracel and Bandara Machado and Pacchini Colli
et al. Errasti, et al. et al. Schumacher et al. VanBoskirk et al. et al. Pimdee et al. et al. et al. et al. Łebkowski et al. et al. Garengo et al. et al.
Code I4.0 factors (2015) (2016) (2016) (2016) et al. (2016) (2016) (2016) (2017) (2017) (2017) (2017) (2018) (2018) (2018) (2018) (2019) (2019) (2019) (2019) (2019)

N Performance √ √ √ √
O Digitalization of √ √ √
customers service
support
P Digital/Smart √ √ √ √ √ √
product and
process/Digital
twin
Q Value √
R Product life cycle √ √
management
I4.0. Colli et al. (2019) proposed that technology, governance, connectivity, competence and Industry 4.0
value are key factors of I4.0. It is quite evident that there exist diverging perception and very adoption key
little common ground as far as critical factors for I4.0 implementation from the perspective of
manufacturing activities.
factors
Centered on the review of the I4.0 maturity models, we observed that soft factors such as
“organization/human resource/culture/competency” and “strategy/leadership” are available
in 66 and 61% of the I4.0 maturity models, respectively. Technical aspects such as
technology, digital factory/smart factory/operations/processes/applications are observed in 703
approximately 50% of the I4.0 maturity models. The remaining factors such as data-driven
services, digital twin, smart products, horizontal and vertical integration, connectivity,
performance, vision, robotics, process automation, product life cycle management,
knowledge management, analytics, cybersecurity, documents, standards, governance,
value, communication and collaboration are observed in a few models. From the
aforementioned literature review, it is quite evident that manufacturing aspects such as
design and development, production, quality management, supply chain, logistics are not
comprehensively dealt with in the majority of the existing framework, with most of the I4.0
factors being generic. Further, there is also a dearth of empirically investigated models
focusing particularly on the manufacturing sector. Empirical testing and validation of the
factors are not evident. These research gaps signify the need for identification, testing and
validation of critical factors and subfactors to implement I4.0 from a holistic perspective,
especially in the manufacturing sector. Hence, the key objectives of the research are:
(1) Identifying, testing and validating factors and subfactors of I4.0 specific to the
manufacturing sector and
(2) Proposing an I4.0 factor stratification model from a manufacturing point of view.

3. Research methodology
In this section, we have outlined our approach to achieving the research objectives identified
in the last paragraph of section 2, and the same is illustrated in Figure 2. The broad steps are
literature review and identification of the research gap, finalization of research objectives,
factors identification, expert survey, data analysis and conclusion.
Given the paucity of I4.0 factors in the context of manufacturing, an effort was made to
review the extant literature to identify the I4.0 factors related to manufacturing as shown in
Table 3. The key activities in manufacturing were mapped. Some of the keywords used to
search the databanks were as follows: “Industry 4.0,” “Quality 4.0,” “Lean 4.0,” “Maintenance
4.0,” “Supply chain 4.0,” “Smart factory,” “Smart manufacturing,” “Logistics 4.0,” “Total
productive maintenance 4.0,” “Service management 4.0,” “Sustainable manufacturing 4.0,”
“Smart operations,” “Factory of the future,” “Digital manufacturing,” “Digital twin,” “Cyber-
physical system,” “Software embedded in hardware,” “Readiness factor for I4.0,” “Strategy
for 4.0,” “Smart factory,” “Smart manufacturing,” “Digital manufacturing,” “Industry 4.0
technologies,” “Advanced human-machine interfaces,” “Advanced manufacturing,” “Virtual
factory” and “Manufacturing execution system.” In total, 49 factors related to manufacturing
were consolidated from the keyword search and the associated literature. The citation table of
the factors related to manufacturing is summarized in Table 3. These factors cover the broad
areas of manufacturing such as design and development, production planning and control,
production, process control, quality assurance, maintenance, supply chain management,
logistics, customer support systems, organization structure and strategy with a focus on
keywords related to I4.0.
This survey was done in two phases. In the first phase, n 5 153 experts were requested to
rate the importance factors (Table 3) with regard to adoption of Industry 4.0 in the
JAMR manufacturing industry using the Likert scale of 1–5 wherein 5 signifies very highly
17,5 important, 4 highly important, 3 moderately important, 2 slightly important and 1 means not
important (Table A1). In the second phase experts were asked to rate the affinity of the
factors (Table 3) with each other on the Likert scale of 1–5 wherein 5 signifies highly
correlated with each other, 4 highly correlated, 3 moderately correlated, 2 slightly correlated
and 1 denotes not correlated with each other (Table A2). The data was from experts
belonging to India, Japan, Germany, South Korea, the USA and China. The experts included
704 participation from the director of the ministry of industrial promotion, vice president, general
manager and managers of I4.0 implementing organizations. The response rate was 33%,
which is a high rate considering the expert survey. An expert survey is used in this study
considering the potential difficulties in the empirical investigation of I4.0 factors in the
manufacturing industry. This is important because very few organizations have
implemented or are in the process of implementation of the emerging concepts of I4.0.
Expert surveys have the benefit of providing a quantitative measure to the concepts being
examined. Bearing in mind the novel nature of the study, the research design and sample size
are adequate and are in line with the demands of research pragmatism (Buchholz et al., 2009).
Invitations to the experts were sent out via a confidential electronic email. Basic descriptive
statistics (mean score and SD) were plotted to measure the validity of the shortlisted factors
and its internal consistency was checked with Cronbach’s alpha.
The classification of the factors was carried out by principal component analysis
(PCA), cluster analysis, and the factors in the cluster were validated using item analysis.
The analysis was done in the Minitab software version 19. The multivariate statistical
technique PCA is used for reducing a large number of identified factors (Table 1) into a
small set of factors that account for a large portion of the total variance in the original set
of factors (Adler and Golany, 2001; Lopez-Camacho et al., 2013). Herein each factor is a
linear combination of the original variables and pursues to imitate the maximum variance
of the original factors (Lopez-Camacho et al., 2013). Prominent scholars have identified
that PCA is one of the simplest and robust techniques for carrying out the compression of
the data and retaining most of the information of the original data (Adler and Golany,
2001; Lopez-Camacho et al., 2013; Kuo and Kusiak, 2019), which is completely in line with
the objective of our research. Furthermore, the cluster analysis technique is used to group
the factors into the basis of the similarity wherein the grouping should assign highly
similar factors to the same group. Prominent scholars have used cluster analysis
technologies for the classifications of the factors in manufacturing, operations, technology
and innovation and so on. (Chattopadhyay et al., 2016; Brusco et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2017;
Hossen et al., 2017; Maghsoodi et al., 2018). The cluster analysis was used to support the
findings of PCA.
A dendrogram based on expert’s feedback on I4.0 factors is developed to establish a
hierarchical relationship between factors (Chattopadhyay et al., 2016; Brusco et al., 2017). These
hierarchies or relationships are represented by dendrogram, which shows a multilevel

Literature review to
Literature review and Finalize the reseach identify I4.0 factors
Research Questions identify research gap objectives from manufacturng
point of view

Expert survey
Data analysis and
Figure 2. Selection of experts
1) Validation testing summarization of Conclusion and way
Research methodology 2) Classifcation of forward
findings
parameters
Factor Citation
Industry 4.0
adoption key
F1.1 Digital engineering change management Aurich and R€oßing (2007), Wu et al. (2015), Qi and Tao factors
(2018)
1.2 Digital product and process twin Boschert and Rosen (2016), Schroeder et al. (2016), Qi
and Tao (2018), Frank et al. (2019), Taylor et al. (2019),
Zhang et al. (2019)
1.3 Integrated product life cycle management Chryssolouris et al. (2009), Ebert (2013), Boschert and 705
(PLM) and application life cycle Rosen (2016)
management (ALM)
1.4 Prototype development by 3D printing Chryssolouris et al. (2009), Wu et al. (2015), Almada-
Lobo (2016), Qi and Tao (2018), Frank et al. (2019), Koh
et al. (2019)
1.5 Software-based project management Hazır (2015), Boschert and Rosen (2016), Schroeder et al.
(2016), Parviainen et al. (2017)
1.6 Virtual testing and simulations Boschert and Rosen (2016), Jackson et al. (2016),
Uhlemann et al. (2017), Frank et al. (2019), Koh et al.
(2019)
2.1 Cloud-based scheduling and monitoring Guo et al. (2015), Arnold et al. (2016), Jackson et al.
(2016), Sanders et al. (2016), Ivanov et al., 2019
2.2 Digital simulations for risk-based planning Guo et al. (2015), Chryssolouris et al. (2009), Wu et al.
(2015), Boschert and Rosen (2016), Jackson et al. (2016)
2.3 Fully integrated enterprise resource McAdam and Galloway (2005), Chryssolouris et al.
planning (2009), Barreto et al. (2017), Qi and Tao (2018), Frank
et al. (2019), Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020)
2.4 Real-time analytics Wu et al. (2015), Boschert and Rosen (2016), Frank et al.
(2019), Reis and Gins (2017), Burger et al. (2019), Koh
et al. (2019)
2.5 Real-time tracking of the inventories Guo et al. (2015), Wu et al. (2015), Frank et al. (2019),
Ivanov et al. (2019)
3.1 Real-time monitoring and control of critical Cloete et al. (2016), Reis and Gins (2017), Caggiano
to quality (CTQ) and performance (2018)
parameters (CTP)
3.2 Online monitoring of performance Chryssolouris et al. (2009), Boschert and Rosen (2016),
parameters Jackson et al. (2016), Reis and Gins (2017), Theorin et al.
(2017), Caggiano (2018), Qi and Tao (2018), Zhang et al.
(2019), Golan et al. (2020)
3.3 Online statistical process control Chryssolouris et al. (2009), Jackson et al. (2016), Reis and
Gins (2017), Caggiano (2018)
3.4 Digital job instructions Jackson et al. (2016), Zhang et al. (2019)
4.1 Real-time condition monitoring Dutta et al. (2013), Boschert and Rosen (2016), Reis and
Gins (2017), Caggiano (2018)
4.2 Predictive maintenance with big data Lee et al. (2015), Wu et al. (2015), Reis and Gins (2017),
analytics Frank et al. (2019), Taylor et al. (2019)
4.3 Software-based machine calibration Nettleton et al. (2016), Ryabinin et al. (2018)
4.4 Online monitoring of mean time to failure Dutta et al. (2013), Serafy and Srivastava (2013), Reis
and mean time between failure and Gins (2017), Qi and Tao (2018)
4.5 Software-based tooling management and Dutta et al. (2013), Holmstr€om et al. (2016), Caggiano
spare parts (2018), Qi and Tao (2018)
5.1 Raw material traceability Guo et al. (2015), Jackson et al. (2016), Frank et al. (2019)
5.2 Manufacturing traceability Guo et al. (2015), Arnold et al. (2016), Jackson et al.
(2016), Sanders et al. (2016), Frank et al. (2019)
6.1 Horizontal and vertical integration Brettel et al. (2014), Arnold et al. (2016), Barreto et al.
(2017), Liao et al. (2017), Qi and Tao (2018), Frank et al.
(2019), Kamble et al. (2020), Stentoft and Rajkumar Table 3.
(2020) Citation of I.40 factors
related to
(continued ) manufacturing
JAMR Factor Citation
17,5
6.2 Robotics process automation Theorin et al. (2017), Satoglu et al. (2018), Carrozza
(2019), Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020)
6.3 Utilization of cloud and IIoT Guo et al. (2015), Arnold et al. (2016), Wu et al. (2015),
Jackson et al. (2016), Theorin et al. (2017), Caggiano
(2018), Ivanov et al. (2019), Burger et al. (2019), Kamble
706 et al. (2020), Koh et al. (2019)
7 Cybersecurity Wu et al. (2015), Arnold et al. (2016), Satoglu et al. (2018),
Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020)
8.1 Digital document and record control Greenough et al. (2001), Boschert and Rosen (2016),
Hedberg et al. (2016), Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020)
8.2 Digital error-proofing systems Satoglu et al. (2018), Masood et al. (2018), Golan et al.
(2020)
8.3 Digital integration of product, process and Bierstaker et al. (2001), Braun and Davis (2003)
system audits
8.4 Automated product inspection and testing Huang and Pan (2015), Boschert and Rosen (2016),
Satoglu et al. (2018), Taylor et al. (2019)
8.5 Software-based gauge calibration and Flynn (2008), Nettleton et al. (2016), Ryabinin et al.
measurement system analysis (2018)
8.6 Digital integration of supply chain Nestic et al. (2010), Satoglu et al. (2018), Ivanov et al.
corrective and preventive actions (CAPA) (2019), Taylor et al. (2019)
9.1 Real-time visibility throughout the supply Guo et al. (2015), Qi and Tao (2018), Satoglu et al. (2018),
chain Ivanov et al. (2019), Koh et al. (2019)
9.2 Analytics-driven demand forecasting Waller and Fawcett (2013), Arnold et al. (2016), Satoglu
et al. (2018), Qi and Tao (2018), Kamble et al. (2020), Koh
et al. (2019)
9.3 Real-time communication and collaboration Rabin (2003), Sanders et al. (2016), Theorin et al. (2017),
Qi and Tao (2018), Kamble et al. (2020)
9.4 Dynamic real-time inventory management Huang et al. (2008), Kan et al. (2011), Guo et al. (2015),
Satoglu et al. (2018), Ivanov et al. (2019), Kamble et al.
(2020)
10.1 AI-based dynamic/predictive routing Wang (2016), Satoglu et al. (2018)
10.2 Augmented reality-enhanced and Mueck et al. (2005), Arnold et al. (2016)
automated logistics
10.3 Real-time customized demand management Guo et al. (2015), Arnold et al. (2016), Barreto et al. (2017),
Wang et al. (2017), Koh et al. (2019)
11.1 Integration of data-driven services with Lee et al. (2014), Guo et al. (2015), Arnold et al. (2016), Qi
customers and Tao (2018), Satoglu et al. (2018), Burger et al. (2019)
11.2 Digitalization of customer service support Arnold et al. (2016), Sanders et al. (2016), Satoglu et al.
(2018), Kamble et al. (2020)
11.3 Data as the value driver of the business Guo et al. (2015), Yang et al. (2017), Qi et al. (2018),
model Satoglu et al. (2018), Burger et al. (2019), Koh et al. (2019)
13.1 Online monitoring of effluent, emissions and Anjaneyulu et al. (2007), Postolache et al. (2009), Melville
wastes (2010)
13.2 Online systems for energy and Parviainen et al. (2017), Theorin et al. (2017), Satoglu
environmental management et al. (2018), Frank et al. (2019), Taylor et al. (2019)
13.3 Online monitoring of disposal after use Zhong and Pearce (2018), Bressanelli et al. (2019)
12.1 Vision for digital transformation Almada-Lobo (2016), Boschert and Rosen (2016),
Satoglu et al. (2018)
12.2 Strategic initiatives for digital Arnold et al. (2016), Schumacher et al. (2016), Satoglu
transformation et al. (2018), Stentoft and Rajkumar (2020)
12.3 Organization governance, culture and Schumacher et al. (2016), Bartodziej (2017), Satoglu et al.
people competency (2018)
12.4 Online knowledge transfer across the value Rosenberg and Foshay (2002), Komninos (2013), Soto
Table 3. chain et al. (2016), Burger et al. (2019), Koh et al. (2019)
hierarchy, wherein clusters at one level are amalgamated as clusters at the subsequent level. Industry 4.0
The basic algorithm used is to calculate the distance matrix amid the input data points, letting adoption key
each data point be a cluster, merging the two adjoining clusters and updating the distance
matrix until only a single cluster remains (Chan et al., 2017; Hossen et al., 2017). The dendrogram
factors
in Figure 6 shows the hierarchical relationship between factors. The horizontal axis of the
dendrogram signifies the distance level of dissimilarity between clusters made from the factors.
The perpendicular axis embodies the clusters made from the factors. The clustering of the data
objects is obtained by cutting the dendrogram at the desired level, and then each connected 707
component forms a cluster. (Chattopadhyay et al., 2016; Brusco et al., 2017).
The item analysis technique is used for statistical analysis of the expert’s judgment to
evaluate the validity of individual factors as well as the relationship of each factor to other
item factors by the corelation and covariance matrix while making a matrix plot between the
factors. The assessment of validity is based upon the corelations between individual items
(factors) that make up the scale, relative to the variance of the items. Through item analysis,
“correlation matrix,” “covariance matrix,” “omitted item statistics” and “matrix plot,” the
validity of individual factors and the relationship of each element to other item factors were
checked (Digalwar et al., 2013). In Figure 7a and b, Cronbach’s alpha values of most of the
factors are observed >0.8, which means that the instrument is highly reliable (Leontitsis and
Pagge, 2007). In addition, the correlation matrix displays Pearson correlation values,
measuring the degree of the linear relationship between each pair of factors of I4.0. The high,
positive correlation values of the factors indicate that the factors have the same
characteristics. Matrix plot shown in Figure 7a and b is an arrangement of scatterplots
and summarizes the relationships between several factors in a matrix of true X-Y plots. Each
scatterplot in the matrix graphs shows that factors are corelated with each other.

4. Data analysis and results

To being with, an expert survey was carried out to evaluate the validity of the shortlisted
factors, as shown in Table 3. The experts were asked to rate if the identified factors are valid
factors concerning I4.0 adoption in the manufacturing industry. This was done using the
Likert scale of 1–5 (1-not valid, 5-absolutely valid). The descriptive statistics of this survey are
shown in Figures 3 and 4.
The descriptive statistics from Figures 3 and 4 indicate the high average factor score
ranging from 4.43 to 4.81 with low SD ranging from 0.23 to 0.44, which in turn shows that the
identified factors are highly significant. Also, Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.834, which
indicates a good internal consistency of data. Further, experts were requested to rate the
affinity of the I4.0 parameters identified in Table 3 with each other on the Likert scale of 1–5
(1-no correlation, 5-very high correlation). The survey data were classified using PCA with
the key objective of reducing the dimensionality of the data set by finding a newfangled set of
factors, lesser than the original set of n 5 48 factors that still contains all the vital information
intact. The eigenvalues in PCA explain how much variance can be described by its related
eigenvector. The Scree plot is given in Figure 5.
In the scree plot (Figure 5), the n 5 13 principal components explain 91% of the variation
in the data. Cluster analysis was deployed to classify the n 5 48 factors into n 5 13 key
factors or clusters by finding similarities among data and grouping similar data items into
groups, which is shown in Figure 6.
The dendrogram in Figure 6 shows the hierarchical relationship between factors. The
horizontal axis of the dendrogram signifies the distance level of dissimilarity between
clusters made from these elements. The difference in the similarity level between the 12 and
13 clusters ranges from 73.2 to 83.8 (10.6), which is very high. However, the difference in the
similarity between 13 and 14 clusters ranges from 83.8 to 86.9 (31), which is low. This
 (scale 1–5)
average factor score
Bar chart of the
Mean score Figure 3.
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.8
4.9

4.7

Software based project management

Digital product & process twin
Prototype development by 3D printing
Virtual testing and simulations
Integrated PLM and ALM
Digital engineering change management
Digital simulations for risk based planning
Cloud based scheduling and monitoring
Real time tracking of the inventories
Real time analytics
Fully integrated enterprise resource planning
Real time monitoring and control of CTQ and CTP
Online statistical process control
Online monitoring of performance parameters
Digital job instructions
Real-time condition monitoring
Predictive maintenance with big data analytics
Software based machine calibration
Online monitoring of MTTR & MTBF
Software based tooling management and spare parts
Raw material traceability
Manufacturing traceability
Robotics process automation
Horizontal and vertical integration
Utilization of cloud and IIOT
Cyber security
Digital document and record control
Automated product inspection and testing
Software based gauge calibration and measurement system analysis
Digital error proofing systems
Digital integration of supply chain CAPA
Digital integration of product , process and system audits
Real-time visibility throughout supply chain
Analytics-driven demand forecasting
Real-time communication and collaboration
Dynamic real-time inventory management
AI based dynamic/predictive routing
Augmented reality-enhanced and automated logistics
Real time customised demand management
Integration of data driven services with customers
Digitalization of customer service support
Data as the value driver of the business model
Online monitoring of effluent, emissions and wastes
Online systems for energy and environmental management 708
Online monitoring of disposal after use
Vision for digital transformation
Strategic initiatives for digital transformation
Organization structure and People competency
Online knowledge transfer across value chain
17,5
JAMR
 Industry 4.0
adoption key
factors

709
0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Standard deviation of experts rating

Figure 4.
Bar chart of the
standard deviation of
the factor score (scale
1–5)
JAMR
17,5

710

Figure 5.
Scree plot of expert’s
feedback on I4.0 factors

Figure 6.
Dendrogram based
upon experts’ feedback
on I4.0 factors

suggests that these n 5 13 out of the n 5 49 factors explain most of the information, as
evidenced by the dendrogram. The details of item analysis are shown in Figure 7a and b.
The correlation matrix and covariance matrix of the factors within the cluster in Figure 7a
and b are showing higher values in most of the cases, which are suggestive of a strong
dependency of the elements within the group. This is also supported by the higher value of both
“item adjusted total correlation” and “squared multiple correlations” for omitted item statistics.
Cronbach’s alpha values in Figure 7a and b are also observed to be greater than 0.8, which
means that the instrument is highly reliable. Since the item-adjusted total correlation for all
factors is consistently high, the indication is that all elements measure the same characteristic.
Consistent values of Cronbach’s alpha in the range of 0.81–0.98 for all omitted factors indicated
that all factors represented a similar nature. A high amount of squared multiple correlations
observed close to 0.7 suggests that the deleted item measures the same characteristic as the
other items. Based on the identified n 5 13 factors comprising n 5 49 subfactors, an I4.0 factor
stratification model is established as shown in Figure 8 to support manufacturing
establishments in the drive for I4.0 implementation. This I4.0 factor stratification model
addresses end-to-end aspects of manufacturing such as design and development, production
planning and control, process control, quality assurance, maintenance, supply chain, logistics,
customer support, environment controls, organization, people development, leadership and
 Industry 4.0
adoption key
factors

711

Figure 7.
(a) Summary of
statistics of the Item
analysis, (b) Summary
of statistics of the Item
analysis

strategy. Further, it will assist the organizations to identify the key aspects of manufacturing
that they must address while transitioning toward I4.0.

4.1 Discussion
The study started with an objective to identify the key factors responsible for the I4.0
application in the manufacturing industry and to propose an empirically tested I4.0 factor
stratification model using appropriate statistical tools. The proposed model given in Figure 8
clearly shows the stratification of key factors and subfactors responsible for the application of
I4.0 in the manufacturing sector. Strategy, leadership and culture are the key elements of
transformation in the journey of I4.0, as rightly highlighted by prominent scholars (Ganzarain
and Errasti, 2016; Jones and Pimdee, 2017; Weber et al., 2017; Saucedo et al., 2018). Design and
development in I4.0 industries incorporate the digital twin, virtual testing and simulations
of the products, software-based project management, PLM, ALM, prototype development
JAMR
17,5

712

Figure 7.

by 3D printing and digital management of the engineering changes (Boschert and Rosen, 2016;
Hofmann and R€ usch, 2017; Uhlemann et al., 2017; Qi and Tao, 2018; Dev et al., 2020).
Production, planning and control in I4.0 factories are carried out by digital simulations for risk-
based planning, cloud-based scheduling and monitoring, real-time tracking of the inventories
and analytics (Guo et al., 2015; Boschert and Rosen, 2016; Satoglu et al., 2018).
Quality assurance in the smart factories is ensured through the digitalization of automated
product inspection and testing, software-enabled gauge calibration and measurement system
analysis, digital error-proofing systems and product, process and system audits and so on
(Braun and Davis, 2003; Huang and Pan, 2015; Satoglu et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2019). The
real-time monitoring and control of CTQ and CTP, online monitoring of performance
parameters and statistical process control enable the process control in the I4.0 implementing
organizations (Boschert and Rosen, 2016; Reis and Gins, 2017; Theorin et al., 2017; Caggiano,
2018; Qi and Tao, 2018; Zhang et al., 2019). The analytics-driven demand forecasting and
augmented reality-enhanced and automated logistics enable the real-time customized demand
management in I4.0 factories (Guo et al., 2015; Arnold et al., 2016; Qi and Tao, 2018). Predictive
 Industry 4.0
adoption key
factors

713

Figure 8.
Industry 4.0 factor
stratification model

maintenance with big data analytics, software-based tooling management and spare parts are
key aspects of maintenance of equipment and tooling in I4.0 factories (Dutta et al., 2013;
Holmstr€om et al., 2016; Reis and Gins, 2017; Qi and Tao, 2018). The online monitoring of energy
management systems, effluent, emissions and wastes, disposal after use are the key aspects of
environmental management in I4.0 (Parviainen et al., 2017; Theorin et al., 2017; Satoglu et al.,
2018; Bressanelli et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2019). The integration of data-driven services with
customers and the digitalization of customer service support enable customer support systems
in the I4.0 factories. (Guo et al., 2015; Arnold et al., 2016; Satoglu et al., 2018). I4.0 is a paradigm
change from centralized to decentralized smart manufacturing where the digital technologies of
I4.0 help to reduce inventory, improve profitability, enhance transparency, traceability and,
most importantly, improve supply-chain efficiency (Brettel et al., 2014; Qi and Tao, 2018;
Satoglu et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2019).
JAMR 5. Conclusion
17,5 The study presented here started with the objective of determining key factors for I4.0
adoption in the manufacturing sector. The I4.0 assessment factors developed by previous
scholars have been generic, where the I4.0 factors have been dissimilar for various models. The
key factors responsible for I4.0 implementation in manufacturing were identified by
multimethodological methodology comprising a comprehensive review of literature, an expert
survey and empirical validation of findings by PCA, cluster analysis and item analysis and
714 establishe an I4.0 factor stratification model from a manufacturing point of view. In contrast to
the previous works, the foremost contribution of this research is the identification of n 5 13
factors and n 5 49 subfactors responsible for the implementation of I4.0 in the manufacturing
and proposes an I4.0 factor stratification model. The proposed Industry 4.0 factor stratification
model (Figure 8) is based on the identification, testing and validation of critical factors and
subfactors to implement I4.0 from a holistic perspective, particularly in the manufacturing
sector. The proposed model encompasses the end-to-end aspects of manufacturing, that is,
design, development, PPC, maintenance, quality, supply chain management, logistics,
customer support, organization structure and strategy for application of I4.0.

5.1 Contribution to practice

The I4.0 factors identified and validated in this research form an excellent basis to drive
alignment in the direction of a common understanding for the implementation of I4.0 in a
manufacturing organization. These factors will serve as a guide for the policymakers,
researchers, academicians and practitioners to design a comprehensive strategy and
roadmap for I4.0 transformation and to ensure that they start on the right footing. The
identified I4.0 factors may serve as an outline for manufacturing establishments to check and
refine their initiatives in their transition toward becoming smart factories. Establishments
who pursue to adopt I4.0 often have diverse starting points. However, irrespective of where
they start from or the sector they are in, all businesses stand to benefit from I4.0.

5.2 Research implication

Industry 4.0 is beginning to radically change the way in which manufacturers operate and is
expected to pave the way toward a future in which smart factories, intelligent machines and
networked processes work to achieve greater manufacturing productivity, the flexibility of
operations and profitability. This study can help the manufacturing organizations as well as
research organizations to understand the key factors and subfactors related with the
application of I4.0. Careful use of the factors highlighted in this study will eliminate, largely,
the possibility of missing out, by the industry executives while transforming the existing
plants into the smart factories. This study can, therefore, be also used by practitioners as an
excellent checklist to base their implementation plans of the I4.0 transformation. This work is
expected to serve as a ready reckoner for policymakers, industrialists and researchers in Asia
to develop strategies for the effective transformation of current businesses into I4.0 smart
factories for the development of the industries, nations and society at large.

5.3 Contribution to the theory

There has been an enormous interest in I4.0 among academicians and its implementation
factors. However, most studies investigating I4.0 implementation factors lack
comprehensiveness and empirically testing. This study is an effort to recognize and validate
I4.0 implementation factors from the manufacturing point of view and proposes an empirically
tested I4.0 factor stratification model. This study is one of the pioneering works in the empirical
investigation of the key factors and subfactors associated with the implementation of I4.0 in
manufacturing. This study addresses the need for providing guidance and an initial framework Industry 4.0
for these industries to have a successful start-up. adoption key
factors
5.4 Limitations and future research
This study was heavily dependent on the views of the experts and some rigorous analysis
using PCA, cluster analysis and item analysis. Technological solutions, on the other hand, are
yet to reach the stage of practical and marketable level of maturity. Due to this limitation, 715
experts have little information to fall back upon when replying to questions. Also, the I4.0
adoption in the industry is in the early stage; hence, the sample size of the study is relatively
moderate (n 5 153) considering the novel nature of the work. Going forward validation of the
identified factors with large sample-sized quantitative research can be a potential area of
future research. Furthermore, as the establishments will implement the digital
transformations, they will offer real-time and tangible data, and reflectiveness, on the
numerous problems and tests that they may face. This will open up a necessity for further
investigation and study of relationships in a more objective way. The categories may need
regrouping, and different relations might appear, which may be an area of future research.

References
Adler, N. and Golany, B. (2001), “Evaluation of deregulated airline networks using data envelopment
analysis combined with principal component analysis with an application to Western Europe”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 132 No. 2, pp. 260-273.
Almada-Lobo, F. (2016), “The Industry 4.0 revolution and the future of manufacturing execution
systems (MES)”, Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 16-21.
Anjaneyulu, Y., Jayakumar, I., Bindu, V.H., Rao, P.M., Sagareswar, G., Ramani, K.V. and Rao, T.H. (2007),
“Real-time remote monitoring of air pollutants and their online transmission to the web using
internet protocol”, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 124 Nos 1-3, pp. 371-381.
Arnold, C., Kiel, D. and Voigt, K.I. (2016), “How the industrial internet of things changes business
models in different manufacturing industries”, International Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 20 No. 8, p. 1640015.
Aurich, J.C. and R€oßing, M. (2007), “Engineering change Impact analysis In production using VR”, in
Cunha, P.F. and Maropoulos, P.G. (Eds), Digital Enterprise Technology, Springer, Boston, MA,
pp. 75-82.
Bandara, O., Vidanagamachchi, K. and Wickramarachchi, R. (2019), “Model for assessing maturity of
Industry 4.0 in the banking sector”, Corpus ID: 186201515.
Barreto, L., Amaral, A. and Pereira, T. (2017), “Industry 4.0 implications in logistics: an overview”,
Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 13, pp. 1245-1252.
Bartodziej, C.J. (2017), “The concept industry 4.0”, in The Concept Industry 4.0, Springer Gabler,
Wiesbaden, pp. 27-50.
Bierstaker, J.L., Burnaby, P. and Thibodeau, J. (2001), “The impact of information technology on the
audit process: an assessment of the state of the art and implications for the future”, Managerial
Auditing Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 159-164.
Boschert, S. and Rosen, R. (2016), “Digital twin—the simulation aspect”, in Hehenberger, P. and
Bradley, D. (Eds), Mechatronic Futures, Springer, Cham, pp. 59-74.
Braun, R.L. and Davis, H.E. (2003), “Computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: analysis and
perspectives”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 725-731.
Bressanelli, G., Perona, M. and Saccani, N. (2019), “Assessing the impacts of the circular economy: a
framework and an application to the washing machine industry”, International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 282-308.
JAMR Brettel, M., Friederichsen, N., Keller, M. and Rosenberg, M. (2014), “How virtualization,
decentralization, and network building change the manufacturing landscape: an Industry 4.0
17,5 Perspective”, International Journal of Mechanical, Industrial Science and Engineering, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Brusco, M.J., Singh, R., Cradit, J.D. and Steinley, D. (2017), “Cluster analysis in empirical OM research:
survey and recommendations”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 300-320, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-08-2015-0493.
716 Buchholz, T., Luzadis, V.A. and Volk, T.A. (2009), “Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems:
results from an expert survey”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, pp. S86-S98.
Burger, K., White, L. and Yearworth, M. (2019), “Developing smart operational research with hybrid
practice theories”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 277 No. 3, pp. 1137-1150.
Caggiano, A. (2018), “Cloud-based manufacturing process monitoring for smart diagnosis services”,
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 612-623.
Canetta, L., Barni, A.F. and Montini, E. (2018), “Development of a digitalization maturity model for the
manufacturing sector”, in IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology, and
Innovation – Proceedings, Stuttgart: IEEE, pp. 1-7.
Carrozza, M.C. (2019), “The socialization of robotics”, in The Robot and Us. Biosystems & Biorobotics,
Springer, Cham, pp. 27-40.
Chan, H.K., Lacka, E., Yee, R.W. and Lim, M.K. (2017), “The role of social media data in operations and
production management”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 17,
pp. 5027-5036.
Chattopadhyay, M., Sengupta, S. and Sahay, B.S. (2016), “Visual hierarchical clustering of the supply
chain using a growing hierarchical self-organizing map algorithm”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 9, pp. 2552-2571.
Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios, D., Papakostas, N., Mourtzis, D., Michalos, G. and Georgoulias, K. (2009),
“Digital manufacturing: history, perspectives, and outlook”, Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers - Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 223 No. 5, pp. 451-462.
Cloete, N.A., Malekian, R. and Nair, L. (2016), “Design of smart sensors for real-time water quality
monitoring”, IEEE Access, Vol. 4, pp. 3975-3990.
Colli, M., Berger, U., Bockholt, M., Madsen, O., Møller, C. and Wæhrens, B.V. (2019), “A maturity
assessment approach for conceiving context-specific roadmaps in the Industry 4.0 era”, Annual
Reviews in Control, Vol. 28, pp. 165-177.
Dev, S., Srivastava, R., Yadav, P. and Prakash, S. (2020), “Additive manufacturing”, in Mangla, S. and
Luthra, S. (Eds), Sustainability, Innovation and Procurement, 2020, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
pp. 27-59, doi: 10.1201/9780429430695.
Digalwar, A.K., Tagalpallewar, A.R. and Sunnapwar, V.K. (2013), “Green manufacturing performance
measures: an empirical investigation from Indian manufacturing industries”, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 59-75.
Dutta, S., Pal, S.K., Mukhopadhyay, S. and Sen, R. (2013), “Application of digital image processing in
tool condition monitoring: a review”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 212-232.
Ebert, C. (2013), “Improving engineering efficiency with PLM/ALM”, Software and Systems Modeling,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 443-449.
Erol, S., Schumacher, A. and Sihn, W. (2016), “Strategic guidance towards Industry 4.0–a three-stage
process model”, International conference on competitive manufacturing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 495-501.
Flynn, M. (2008), Regression Analysis of Automated Measurement Systems. IEEE AUTOTESTCON,
IEEE, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 536-542.
Frank, A.G., Dalenogare, L.S. and Ayala, N.F. (2019), “Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation Industry 4.0
patterns in manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 210,
pp. 15-26. adoption key
Ganzarain, J. and Errasti, N. (2016), “Three-stage maturity model in SME’s toward industry 4.0”,
factors
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 1119-1128.
Ghobakhloo, M. (2018), “The future of the manufacturing industry: a strategic roadmap toward
Industry 4.0”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 910-936.
717
Gill, M. and VanBoskirk, S. (2016), The Digital Maturity Model 4.0. Benchmarks: Digital
Transformation Playbook, for E-Business & Channel Strategy Professionals, FORRESTER,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, MA.
G€okalp, E., Şener, U. and Eren, P.E. (2017), “Development of an assessment model for industry 4.0:
Industry 4.0-MM”, in Mas, A., Mesquida, A., O’Connor, R., Rout, T. and Dorling, A. (Eds),
International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (128–
142), Springer, Cham.
Golan, M., Cohen, Y. and Singer, G. (2020), “A framework for the operator–workstation interaction in
industry 4.0”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 2421-2432.
Gracel, J. and Łebkowski, P. (2018), “The concept of Industry 4.0 related manufacturing technology
maturity model ( Maturity Model, MTMM)”, Decision Making in Manufacturing and Services,
Vol. 12, pp. 17-31.
Greenough, R., Fakun, D. and Kay, J. (2001), “Development of a digital manual for a manufacturing
system–a case study”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 387-394.
Guo, Z., Ngai, E., Yang, C. and Liang, X. (2015), “An RFID-based intelligent decision support system
architecture for production monitoring and scheduling in a distributed manufacturing
environment”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 159, pp. 16-28.
€ (2015), “A review of analytical models, approaches, and decision support tools in project
Hazır, O.
monitoring and control”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 808-815.
Hedberg, T., Lubell, J., Fischer, L., Maggiano, L. and Barnard Feeney, A. (2016), “Testing the digital
thread in support of model-based manufacturing and inspection”, Journal of Computing and
Information Science in Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 2, p. 021001.
Hofmann, E. and R€ usch, M. (2017), “Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as future prospects on
logistics”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 89, pp. 23-34.
Holmstr€om, J., Holweg, M., Khajavi, S.H. and Partanen, J. (2016), “The direct digital
manufacturing (r)evolution: definition of a research agenda”, Operations Management
Research, Vol. 9, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1007/s12063-016-0106-z.
Hossen, M.B., Sharker, M.R., Rahman, M.A. and Hoque, M.S. (2017), “Innovative research”,
International Journal of Innovative Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Huang, S.H. and Pan, Y.C. (2015), “Automated visual inspection in the semiconductor industry: a
survey”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 66, pp. 1-10.
Huang, G.Q., Zhang, Y.F. and Jiang, P.Y. (2008), “RFID-based wireless manufacturing for real-time
management of job shop WIP inventories”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 36 Nos 7-8, pp. 752-764.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A. and Sokolov, B. (2019), “The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on
the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 829-846.
Jackson, K., Efthymiou, K. and Borton, J. (2016), “Digital manufacturing and flexible assembly
technologies for reconfigurable aerospace production systems”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 52,
pp. 274-279.
JAMR Jones, C. and Pimdee, P. (2017), “Innovative ideas: Thailand 4.0 and the fourth industrial revolution”,
Asian International Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 4-35.
17,5
Jung, K., Kulvatunyou, B., Choi, S. and Brundage, M.P. (2016), “An overview of a smart manufacturing
system readiness assessment”, in N€a€as, I. et al. (Eds), Advances in Production Management
Systems. Initiatives for a Sustainable World. IFIP International Conference on Advances in
Production Management Systems, Springer, Cham, pp. 705-712.
Kagermann, H. (2015), “Change through digitization—value creation in the age of Industry 4.0”, in
718 Albach, H., Meffert, H., Pinkwart, A. and Reichwald, R. (Eds), Management of Permanent
Change, 23–45, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A. and Dhone, N.C. (2020), “Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing practices
for sustainable organizational performance in Indian manufacturing companies”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 1319-1337.
Kan, T.W., Teng, C.H. and Chen, M.Y. (2011), “QR code-based augmented reality applications”, in
Furht, B. (Ed.), Handbook of Augmented Reality (339–354), Springer, New York, NY.
Komninos, N. (2013), Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems, and Digital Spaces, Routledge,
IGI Global, pp. 4205-4212.
Kuo, Y.H. and Kusiak, A. (2019), “From data to big data in production research: the past and future
trends”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 Nos 15-16, pp. 4828-4853.
Lee, J., Kao, H.A. and Yang, S. (2014), “Service innovation and smart analytics for industry 4.0 and a
big data environment”, Procedia Corp, Vol. 16, pp. 3-8.
Lee, J., Ardakani, H.D., Yang, S. and Bagheri, B. (2015), “Industrial big data analytics and cyber-
physical systems for future maintenance & service innovation”, Procedia Corp, Vol. 38, pp. 3-7.
Lee, J., Jun, S., Chang, T.W. and Park, J. (2017), “A smartness assessment framework for smart
factories using the analytic network process”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 5, p. 794.
Leontitsis, A. and Pagge, J. (2007), “A simulation approach to Cronbach’s alpha statistical
significance”, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 336-340.
Leyh, C., Bley, K., Sch€affer, T. and Forstenh€ausler, S. (2016), “SIMMI 4.0-a maturity model for
classifying the enterprise-wide IT and software landscape focusing on Industry 4.0”, 2016
Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS) (1297–1302),
Gdansk, IEEE.
Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E.D.F.R. and Ramos, L.F.P. (2017), “Past, present, and future of
Industry 4.0-a a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 3609-3629.
Lichtblau, K., Stich, V., Bertenrath, R., Blum, M., Bleider, M., Millack, A. and Schr€oter, M. (2015),
IMPULS-industrie 4.0-Readiness, Impuls-Stiftung des VDMA, Aachen-K€oln.
Lopez-Camacho, E., Terashima-Marın, H., Ochoa, G. and Conant-Pablos, S.E. (2013), “Understanding
the structure of bin packing problems through principal component analysis”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 145 No. 2, pp. 488-499.
Machado, C.G., Winroth, M., Carlsson, D., Almstr€om, P., Centerholt, V. and Hallin, M. (2019), “Industry
4.0 readiness in manufacturing companies: challenges and enablers towards increased
digitalization”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 81, pp. 1113-1118.
Maghsoodi, A.I., Kavian, A., Khalilzadeh, M. and Brauers, W.K. (2018), “CLUS-MCDA: a novel
framework based on cluster analysis and multiple criteria decision theory in a supplier selection
problem”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 118, pp. 409-422.
Masood, T., Egger, J. and Kern, M. (2018), “Future-proofing the through-life engineering service
systems”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 16, pp. 179-186.
McAdam, R. and Galloway, A. (2005), “Enterprise resource planning and organizational innovation: a
management perspective”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 280-290.
Melville, N.P. (2010), “Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability”, MIS Industry 4.0
Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
adoption key
Moeuf, A., Pellerin, R., Lamouri, S., Tamayo-Giraldo, S. and Barbaray, R. (2018), “The industrial
management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0”, International Journal of Production Research,
factors
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 1118-1136.
Mueck, B., H€ower, M., Franke, W. and Dangelmaier, W. (2005), “Augmented reality applications for
warehouse logistics”, in Abraham, A., Dote, Y., Furuhashi, T., K€oppen, M., Ohuchi, A. and
Ohsawa, Y. (Eds), Soft Computing as Transdisciplinary Science and Technology. Advances in 719
Soft Computing, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1053-1062.
uller, J.M., Kiel, D. and Voigt, K.I. (2018), “What drives the implementation of Industry 4.0? The role
M€
of opportunities and challenges in the context of sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 1,
p. 247.
Nestic, S., Nedeljkovic, B. and Tonic, N. (2010), “Solutions for support for quality management
systems”, Center for Quality, 4th International Quality Conference.
Nettleton, D.F., Bugnicourt, E., Wasiak, C. and Rosales, A. (2016), “Towards automatic calibration of
in-line machine processes”, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Manufacturing.
Pacchini, A.P.T., Lucato, W.C., Facchini, F. and Mummolo, G. (2019), “The degree of readiness for the
implementation of Industry 4.0”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 113, p. 103125.
Parviainen, P., Tihinen, M., K€a€ari€ainen, J. and Teppola, S. (2017), “Tackling the digitalization
challenge: how to benefit from digitalization in practice”, International Journal of Information
Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-77.
Postolache, O.A., Pereira, J.D. and Girao, P.S. (2009), “Smart sensors network for air quality monitoring
applications”, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. 58 No. 9,
pp. 3253-3262.
Prakash, S., Kumar, S., Soni, G., Jain, V. and Rathore, A.P.S. (2020), “Closed-loop supply chain network
design and modelling under risks and demand uncertainty: an integrated robust optimization
approach”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 290 No. 1, pp. 837-864, doi: 10.1007/s10479-018-
2902-3.
Qi, Q. and Tao, F. (2018), “Digital twin and big data towards smart manufacturing and industry 4.0: a
360-degree comparison”, IEEE Access, Vol. 6, pp. 3585-3593.
Rabin, S. (2003), “The real-time enterprise, the real-time supply chain”, Information Systems
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 58-62.
Reis, M. and Gins, G. (2017), “Industrial process monitoring in the big data/industry 4.0 era: from
detection to diagnosis, to prognosis”, Processes, Vol. 5 No. 3, p. 35.
Rosenberg, M.J. and Foshay, R. (2002), “E-learning: strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital
age”, Performance Improvement, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 50-51.
Ryabinin, K., Chuprina, S. and Kolesnik, M. (2018), “Calibration and monitoring of IoT devices by means
of embedded scientific visualization tools”, in Shi, Y. et al. (Eds), Computational Science – ICCS
2018. International Conference on Computational Science, June, Springer, Cham, pp. 655-668.
Sanders, A., Elangeswaran, C. and Wulfsberg, J. (2016), “Industry 4.0 implies lean manufacturing:
research activities in industry 4.0 function as enablers for lean manufacturing”, Journal of
Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 811-833.
Satoglu, S., Ustundag, A., Cevikcan, E. and Durmusoglu, M.B. (2018), “Lean production systems for
industry 4.0”, in Industry 4.0: Managing the Digital Transformation. Springer Series in
Advanced Manufacturing, Springer, Cham, pp. 43-59.
Saucedo-Martınez, J.A., Perez-Lara, M., Marmolejo-Saucedo, J.A., Salais-Fierro, T.E. and Vasant, P.
(2018), “Industry 4.0 framework for management and operations: a review”, Journal of Ambient
Intelligence and Humanized Computing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 789-801.
JAMR Schroeder, G.N., Steinmetz, C., Pereira, C.E. and Espindola, D.B. (2016), “Digital twin data modeling
with automation and a communication methodology for data exchange”, IFAC-Papers Online,
17,5 Vol. 49 No. 30, pp. 12-17.
Schumacher, A., Erol, S. and Sihn, W. (2016), “A maturity model for assessing industry 4.0 readiness
and maturity of manufacturing enterprises”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 52, pp. 161-166.
Serafy, C. and Srivastava, A. (2013), “Online TSV health monitoring and built-in self-repair to
overcome aging”, 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Defect and Fault Tolerance in VLSI
720 and Nanotechnology Systems (DFTS), IEEE, New York City, NY, pp. 224-229.
Soto-Acosta, P. and Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. (2016), “New ICTs for knowledge management in
organizations”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 417-422.
Stentoft, J. and Rajkumar, C. (2020), “The relevance of Industry 4.0 and its relationship with moving
manufacturing out, back and staying at home”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 58 No. 10, pp. 2953-2973.
Stefan, L., Thom, W., Dominik, L., Dieter, K. and Bernd, K. (2018), “The concept for an evolutionary
maturity based 4.0 migration model”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 72, pp. 404-40.
Taylor, N., Human, C., Kruger, K., Bekker, A. and Basson, A. (2019), “Comparison of digital twin
development in manufacturing and maritime domains”, in Borangiu, T., Trentesaux, D., Leit~ao,
P., Giret Boggino, A. and Botti, V. (Eds), International Workshop on Service Orientation in and
Multi-Agent Manufacturing, Springer, Cham, Vol. 853, pp. 158-170.
Theorin, A., Kristofer, B., Julien, P., Michael, L., Charlotta, J., Thomas, L. and Bengt, L. (2017), “An
event-driven manufacturing information system architecture for Industry 4.0”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1297-1311.
Trotta, D. and Garengo, P. (2019), “Assessing Industry 4.0 maturity: an essential scale for SMEs”,
2019 8th International Conference on Industrial Technology and Management (ICITM), IEEE,
pp. 69-74.
Uhlemann, T.H.J., Lehmann, C. and Steinhilper, R. (2017), “The digital twin: realizing the cyber-
physical production system for industry 4.0”, Procedia Corp, Vol. 61, pp. 335-340.
Waller, M.A. and Fawcett, S.E. (2013), “Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: a revolution
that will transform supply chain design and management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 77-84.
Wang, Y., Ma, H.S., Yang, J.H. and Wang, K.S. (2017), “Industry 4.0: away from mass customization to
mass personalization production”, Advances in Manufacturing, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 311-320.
Wang, K. (2016), “Proceedings of the 6th International workshop of advanced manufacturing and
automation”, in Logistics 4.0 Solution-New Challenges and Opportunities, Atlantis Press, Vol. 24.
Weber, C., K€onigsberger, J., Kassner, L. and Mitschang, B. (2017), “M2DDM–a maturity model for
data-driven manufacturing”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 63, pp. 173-178.
Wu, D., Rosen, D.W., Wang, L. and Schaefer, D. (2015), “Cloud-based design and manufacturing: a new
paradigm in digital manufacturing and design innovation”, Computer-Aided Design,
Vol. 59, pp. 1-14.
Yang, M., Evans, S., Vladimirova, D. and Rana, P. (2017), “Value uncaptured perspective for sustainable
business model innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 1794-1804.
Zhang, J., Ding, G., Zou, Y., Qin, S. and Fu, J. (2019), “Review of job shop scheduling research and its new
perspectives under Industry 4.0”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1809-1830.
Zhong, S. and Pearce, J.M. (2018), “Tightening the loop on the circular economy: coupled distributed
recycling and manufacturing with recycling bot and RepRap 3-D printing”, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 128, pp. 48-58.
Further reading Industry 4.0
Gomez, J.G., Martınez Costa, M. and Martınez Lorente, A.R. (2015), “An in-depth review of the internal adoption key
relationships of the EFQM model”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 486-502.
factors
Koh, L., Orzes, G. and Jia, F. (2019), “The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0): technologies
disruption on operations and supply chain management”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 817-828.
Mehralizadeh, Y. and Safaeemoghaddam, M. (2010), “The applicability of quality management 721
systems and models to higher education: a new perspective”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 175-187.
Ouyang, Q., Zhao, J., Pan, W. and Chen, Q. (2016), “Real-time monitoring of process parameters in rice
wine fermentation by a portable spectral analytical system combined with multivariate
analysis”, Food Chemistry, Vol. 190, pp. 135-141.
Sampaio, P., Saraiva, P. and Monteiro, A. (2012), “A comparison and usage overview of business
excellence models”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 181-200.
Strange, R. and Zucchella, A. (2017), “Industry 4.0, global value chains, and international business”,
Multinational Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 174-184.
Talwar, B. (2011), “Business excellence models and the path ahead”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 21-35.
JAMR Appendix
17,5
Industry 4.0 survey Date
Please rate the importance of following factors with regard to adoption of industry 4.0 in the
manufacturing industry using the Likert scale of 1–5 (5 very highly important, 4 highly important,
Question 3 moderately important, 2 slightly important and 1 not important).
722 Very High Partial Slight No
Factor High
code Factor name (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

F-1.1 Digital engineering change management

F-1.2 Digital product and process twin
F-1.3 Integrated product life cycle management (PLM) and
application life cycle management (ALM)
F-1.4 Prototype development by 3D printing
F-1.5 Software-based project management
F-1.6 Virtual testing and simulations
F-2.1 Cloud-based scheduling and monitoring
F-2.2 Digital simulations for risk-based planning
F-2.3 Fully integrated enterprise resource planning
F-2.4 Real-time analytics
F-2.5 Real-time tracking of the inventories
F-3.1 Real-time monitoring and control of critical to quality
(CTQ) and performance parameters (CTP)
F-3.2 Online monitoring of performance parameters
F-3.3 Online statistical process control
F-3.4 Digital job instructions
F-4.1 Real-time condition monitoring
F-4.2 Predictive maintenance with big data analytics
F-4.3 Software-based machine calibration
F-4.4 Online monitoring of mean time to failure and mean
time between failure
F-4.5 Software-based tooling management and spare parts
F-5.1 Raw material traceability
F-5.2 Manufacturing traceability
F-6.1 Horizontal and vertical integration
F-6.2 Robotics process automation
F-6.3 Utilization of cloud and HOT
F-7 Cybersecurity
F-8.1 Digital document and record control
F-8.2 Digital error-proofing systems
F-8.3 Digital integration of product, process and system
audits
F-8.4 Automated product inspection and testing
F-8.5 Software-based gauge calibration and measurement
system analysis
F-8.6 Digital integration of supply chain corrective and
preventive actions (CAPA)
F-9.1 Real-time visibility throughout the supply chain
F-9.2 Analytics-driven demand forecasting
F-9.3 Real-time communication and collaboration
F-9.4 Dynamic real-time inventory management
F-10.1 Al-based dynamic/predictive routing
Table A1. F-10.2 Augmented reality-enhanced and automated
Importance of factors logistics
with regard to adoption
of Industry 4.0 (continued )
Industry 4.0 survey Date
Industry 4.0
Please rate the importance of following factors with regard to adoption of industry 4.0 in the adoption key
manufacturing industry using the Likert scale of 1–5 (5 very highly important, 4 highly important, factors
Question 3 moderately important, 2 slightly important and 1 not important).
Very High Partial Slight No
Factor High
code Factor name (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
723
F-10.3 Real-time customized demand management
F-11.1 Integration of data-driven services with customers
F-11.2 Digitalization of customer service support
F-11.3 Data as the value driver of the business model
F-13.1 Online monitoring of effluent, emissions and wastes
F-13.2 Online systems for energy and environmental
management
F-13.3 Online monitoring of disposal after use
F-12.1 Vision for digital transformation
F-12.2 Strategic initiatives for digital transformation
F-12.3 Organization governance, culture and people
competency
F-12.4 Online knowledge transfer across the value chain Table A1.
JAMR
17,5

724

Table A2.
Rating of the affinity of
factors with each other
About the authors Industry 4.0
Sanjiv Narula: Sanjiv Narula is a research scholar in Industry 4.0 and strategic quality and operational
excellence with 22 years of experience in the automobile industry. He is a Mechanical Engineer with adoption key
Master of Business Administration and is a Certified Quality System and Supplier Quality Auditor. He is factors
a subject matter expert in Hoshin Kanri, New Product Development, Global Supplier Development,
Engineering Change Management, Risk Management Audit, Regulatory Compliance, Project
Management, QC Circles and Supplier Quality Management. He has accumulated hands-on
experience in implementing Lean 4.0, Quality 4.0, Digitization, TPM, TQM, QCC, Six Sigma and 725
Benchmarking best practices.
Dr. Surya Prakash: Dr. Surya Prakash is an Assistant professor, School of Engg., BML Munjal
University. He received his PhD from Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur. Prior to joining
BMU, he had worked as an Assistant Professor for NorthCap University Gurgaon (formerly ITM
University) and UPTU, Lucknow. His research focuses on Robust Optimization, Supply Chain Network
Design, Artificial Intelligence in Manufacturing, Industry 4.0 and so on. Dr. Surya has published
research papers in Annals of OR, EJOR, SCM Int. Journal, Benchmarking, Modeling in Management and
so on. Dr. Surya also presented his research papers at various international conferences organized at
NUS Singapore, DTU Delhi, IIT Guwahati, IIIE Udaipur, MNIT Jaipur and so on. He has pronounced
interest in entrepreneurship and founded portal and mentored the start-up VDT Pipeline Integrity
Solutions. Surya Prakash is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: suryayadav8383@
gmail.com
Dr. Maheshwar Dwivedy: Dr. Maheshwar Dwivedy is an Associate professor, School of Engg., BML
Munjal University. He received his BTech in mechanical engineering from CET, Bhubaneswar in 1999,
MTech in production engineering from NIT, Rourkela in 2005 and a PhD in industrial engineering from
BITS, Pilani in 2014. His research focuses on sustainability studies through systems approaches such as
life-cycle assessment to model technological progress and product diffusion. Dr. Dwivedy is interested in
the life cycle of electronic goods and ultimately the waste generated with the special focus on the
environmental benefits and economic potential of a circular and green economy.
Dr. Vishal Talwar: Dr. Vishal Talwar is the Dean – School of Management, BML Munjal University.
Prior to Joining BMU, he was the Head of Campus (Mumbai) and Assistant Dean of S.P. Jain School of
Global Management – Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney. Dr. Talwar had spent close to 12 years in
the United Kingdom and returned to India in 2013 as Dean JRE School of Management, an Educomp
Raffles Joint Venture. He has a PhD from Manchester Business School where he was awarded a doctoral
scholarship by the Shell Oil Company.
Surendra Prasad Tiwari: Surendra is a PhD research scholar in TQM and holds MS-TQM (Gold
Medalist), MBA (Operations), MSC (M & P), PGSMA (SQC&OR-ISI), PGDCA and MBB (Lean-Six Sigma).
He is also a qualified lead auditor for QMS and Assessor for EFQM and ZED business excellence models.
His 30 years of diverse experience includes 14 years working in the industries at various management
positions and 16 years in training and consultancy. He has conducted over 12,000 h of classroom
trainings (through public and in-house courses in India, Europe, Africa and Middle East Asian countries)
covering over 700 training programs, 650 organizations in various sectors and has trained over 60
Master Black Belts, 600 black belts, 1,500 green belts, 400 champions and over 3,000 executives on
Quality Engineering, Process Improvement, core tools and advanced Statistical tools and so on. He has
supported and mentored over 2000 improvement projects related to Lean, TPM, Six Sigma,
sustainability and problem-solving.

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