Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 217 (2023) 238–247

4th International Conference on Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing

Lessons-learnt on articulating and evaluating I4.0 developments at

SME manufacturing companies
Jenny Coenena, Rufus Fraanjea, Sander Limonarda, Mirjam Zijdervelda*
a
a The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdamseweg 137, the Netherlands

Abstract

This paper describes an attempt to systematically develop a Smart Industry (SI) toolkit in conjunction with a
digitization scan that identifies the digital maturity and potential improvement steps for SME manufacturing
companies. Existing scan methods have been compared and based on that a new maturity measurement instrument
has been proposed. In parallel tools relevant for digitization of SME manufacturing companies were selected, such
that this allowed for in depth discussion with SMEs, by indicating how they could grow in maturity by implementing
toolkit elements. The approach also lets SMEs contribute to toolkit development (and as such help fellow
manufacturing SMEs in their development) by means of valuable lessons-learned or relevant topics for the toolkit and
refinement of the scan with examples and references. The maturity scan thus becomes the representation of a shared
development agenda. The results also shed some light on how to help SME companies in the Netherlands in their
transition towards Smart Manufacturing by means of a jointly developed SI toolkit.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Industry 4.0 and Smart
Peer-review
Manufacturingunder responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Industry 4.0 and Smart
Manufacturing
Keywords: SME; digitization technology readiness; digital maturity; IT integration; toolkit

1. Problem Background

EU manufacturing industry generates 20-25% of the value of the worldwide manufacturing output. 99% of
manufacturing companies are SMEs [1]. The sector employs 29 million people. The Netherlands contribute with

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31618535471

*

E-mail address: j.m.g.coenen@hhs.nl

1877-0509 © 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing

1877-0509 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Industry 4.0 and Smart
Manufacturing
10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.219
 Jenny Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 217 (2023) 238–247 239
2 J. Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

around 40.000 manufacturing companies with 800.000 employees. The largest fraction of these companies is located
in Zuid-Holland, the province covering the Rotterdam-the Hague area (with system integrators and tech providers for
aerospace, maritime, offshore, AgroTech, MedTech, as well as service providers and suppliers in metal industry,
mechatronics, composite industry etc.[2]. Progress towards an ambitious intention to transform the Netherlands
manufacturing into the ‘most flexible and most digitally connected manufacturing network’[3] is slow, according to
evaluations and polls at national level [2]. Little data is available on the degree to which different Smart Industry
technologies have been implemented by SMEs in the Netherlands. Such data is relevant to get insight in which
technologies are potentials or bottlenecks? Therefore universities of applied sciences were asked to perform a
‘digitization scan’ and to help SMEs to implement digitization steps. This was actually done in several regions in the
Netherlands, by different research groups. This paper particularly relates to the results of The Hague University of
Applied Sciences (THUAS) and the region Zuid-Holland. As [4] explains such a digitization scan should provide
“clear overview of existing Industry 4.0 concepts, and support SMEs in defining their individual strategy to introduce
Industry 4.0 in their firm.” To get this insight in relevant technologies and methods, a toolkit with best practices and
implementation examples might help; to understand Industry 4.0 principles and to see their potential. Therefore the
objective of this paper is to find practical and effective ways to develop a toolkit for digital maturity enhancement of
SMEs. The ’digital maturity assessment’ should be an integral part of the toolkit. This leads to the following research
questions: What are the most relevant transitions and areas of technology to which an SME toolkit should contribute?
How to measure the ‘distance’ between the target and actual digital maturity of a manufacturing SME? Which tools
are of relevance most to SMEs? How can such tools be developed for application in various types of SMEs? The
outline of this paper is as follows: Section 2 summarizes relevant existing work on digitization scans and SI toolkits
for SME. This is followed by a description of the followed methodology in section 3 and results in section 4.
Conclusion towards the contribution on this research paper are given in section 5.

2. Existing Work

SMEs are typically agile companies with often innovative products and processes (this is confirmed by [5]).
But to accomplish a digital transformation with a small organization, whilst coping with daily operational matters, can
be hard. “Many of these SMEs have no overview of existing Industry 4.0 concepts and technologies, how they are
implemented in their own companies, and which concepts and technologies should primarily be focused on future
Industry 4.0 implementation measures.”[4]. The characteristics of SMEs and their adoption of Industry 4.0
technologies are also discussed in for instance [5]–[13]. It indicates that SMEs lack both capabilities (low
technological readiness and equally low digital maturity) and capacities to move fast towards the target. Fear of vendor
lock in, high uncertainty about Return On Investment (ROI), lack of best practices, and not being able to articulate
digitization questions well are barriers required to overcome. As stated in [14] maturity models can help in explaining
and understanding complex I4.0 concepts, to get insight into uncertainty of benefits and costs of I4.0 and to get an
idea of an organization’s capability. This last aspect is important because that seems required to initialize
transformation. Kieroth [15] discusses why maturity models are not widely used despite their benefits and states
“support in the form of a maturity model is highly welcome and necessary but on the other hand the complexity of the
model is too high". Kieroth [15] also proposes to update maturity models as technology changes fast. Maturity models
often take the form of surveys, executed by consultants or as self-assessment. Scoring is often done based on reference
tables [16] that should have a sufficiently granular scale. Schumacher [16] stresses that questionnaires can only be
used as instrument, if the respondents have basic understanding of I4.0. Recommendations that follow from [15] are
to use a 2-step process consisting of a first quick overview done with a relatively simple scan followed by an in-depth
analysis with an Industry 4.0 expert. Helpful overviews of relevant maturity and readiness models for SI are given in
[9], [17] and [18]. These inventories partly overlap, but together they describe about 20 different maturity models for
manufacturing. A shared conclusion is that “only a limited number of the SM and Industry 4.0 roadmaps, maturity
models, frameworks and readiness assessments that are available today reflect the specific requirements and
challenges of SME" [17]. According to [18] the most complete maturity model is given in [14]. SMEs experience
financial resource limitations, knowledge resource limitations, and technology awareness limitations [19]. In [17] it
is also concluded that the lowest maturity level measured in a ‘scan’ is usually too high for the common situation at
SMEs; transition from 0-1 already requires significant mind-set change; therefore [17] concludes that SMEs need their
own roadmaps, that are supported by a SME-SI Toolkit and to associate the maturity instrument to this. Solutions for
SMEs have to be highly flexible due to the typical product mix (low volume, high complexity) [20] and because
240 Jenny Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 217 (2023) 238–247
J. Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 3

process standardization is often lacking [21]. Mittal [10] identifies a need for “tools and practices in a modular toolkit
providing a step-by-step and building-block approach for SMEs to develop SM capabilities in their own individual
manufacturing systems.” The major points that [10] brings across are: -that such a toolkit should also cover employees’
skills enhancement and business models and not only technical aspects; - that SMEs are being forced by their OEM
clients to digitalize their processes; -that a toolkit for SMEs should be “a stepwise and building-block instrument,
always considering a continuous improvement process and various maturity levels towards developing new Smart
Manufacturing capabilities”. Further on an overview is given of proposed toolboxes, for instance Robotics and
Automation Tools and Sensors and Connectivity tools. For each toolbox incremental steps are defined that take an
SME to a higher Smart Manufacturing Maturity. Mittal [22] subsequently proposes to close this gap by means of a
‘smart manufacturing adoption framework’. The contribution of this paper is to see if a similar framework could be
constructed for the typical SME companies in the Netherlands, tailored to their articulated needs.

3. Methodology

Based on the conclusions of earlier work as stated above, it was decided to adopt the following steps in order
to answer the research question: -It was decided to use a two-step maturity assessment, starting with a quick-scan
interview, followed by a more in-depth case analysis by an expert in which potential tools for increasing the maturity
were evaluated; -The scope was narrowed to a limited number of maturity dimensions as the toolkit development team
had limited capacity (and merely technical capabilities); By means of the quick scan relevant I4.0 transition areas
were identified and relevant solution areas for the SI toolkit selected. Subsequently, for interested companies the actual
I4.0 capabilities of that company were refined and analysed, and what could be improved by what steps. The
experiences from solution development then in turn should find their way to the scan instruments. This approach is
shown in Figure 1 (development steps A-D, execution steps E-F).

Fig. 1. Research Approach

For the quick scan [A] it was decided to focus on the maturity level reached by the company in transformational areas
of Digital Factory, Smart Working and Advanced Manufacturing [3]. These transformations have a common purpose
of more efficient manufacturing processes in which less mistakes are being made. Table 1 shows what smart
manufacturing technologies are typically related to these transformation areas. The quick scan should be suitable to
be used by both students and researchers, with different backgrounds. The quick scans were designed as semi-
structured interviews about what kind of Smart Technologies the interviewed company applies, with specific attention
for ‘best practice sharing’. To that end questions like “What could other SME companies learn from your
achievements? What are your own targets?” were included. Additionally an estimate of the digital maturity should
be made. In order to operationalize the digital maturity the indicators as given in Table 2, left side (Maturity scale
THUAS) were used. These indicators were based on a selection of existing indicators ([23]–[26]). To scope the SME-
SI toolkit [B], a selection was made from Schonfuss' catalogue [27]. This catalogue contains 59 digital solution areas
for manufacturing, categorized in Data Capture and Visualization, Data Analysis, Actuation, Support Systems [27] as
the first step “towards developing a more elaborate process that helps SMEs decide on cost-efficient technology
implementations.”. Areas with the highest priority were selected through a workshop with 10 SME companies and
given in Table 3. The second step of the scan, the in depth discussion with a SI expert [C] consisted of: a ‘gemba-
style’ walk in order to observe the manufacturing process; discuss how the process is controlled; discuss the level of
IT integration; the expected merits of digitization and the expected impact of digitization on productivity and
efficiency. Then the toolkit solution areas of Table 3 were discussed to see if and how to integrate and implement
these in the company’s process and what kind of ROI could be expected from this.
 Jenny Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 217 (2023) 238–247
4 J. Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000
Table 1. connecting technology to indicators
Area [3] Advanced Manufacturing
Technology Autonomous processes,
Uses Additive Manufacturing,
Applies Robots (in production),
Uses Advanced mechatronic
systems
Table 2. Indicators for Digital Manufacturing
Maturity scale-THUAS
Dimension Automation Scale ranging from:
Single-station automation; Connected
Automated Assembly System; Real-time
Responsive Integrated Manufacturing
System; to Intelligent Integrated
Manufacturing System [25]
Dimension ‘System Intelligence’. Scale
ranging from Capable of sensing, Capable of
decision-making, to Capable of action[24]
Dimension ‘Shop floor Integration’. Degree
to which production devices are integrated
by wired or wireless communication systems
Dimension ‘Digital twin’ for the production
system. Degree to which the digital twin is
connected to the sensors, actuators,
computers etc on the shopfloor & with the
enterprise applications.
Dimension ‘Autonomy’. Degree to which an
operator can decide autonomously on
assembly sequence and methods for instance.
Dimension ‘Flexibility’ (like actions being
Time/place independent, by use of remote
support) [26]
Table 3. Solution Areas selected from Schonfuss’ catalogue [27]
Solution Area Logistics
Optimisation of material flow and travel within operation
Solution Area Scheduling
Real time tracking of internal jobs (location, status)
Capacity monitoring of human and machine resources
241
Digital Factory Smart Working
Cloud Usage, IT security, Information Employee skill set, skill acquisition,
Sharing, Uses tags; Makes use of IoT, Applies Uses exo-skeleton, uses extended
Horizontal/Vertical Integration, Digital reality, uses ‘social media support’,
modelling, uses Digital Twins and/or works collaboratively with cobot [28]
simulation
Maturity scale -taken from [14] [0-Absence, 1-Existence, 2-Survival, 3-Mature]
Dimension Production Systems . Scale ranging from: 0-no software or automation, 1-few
software systems, partially automated, 2-some software systems in use and production system
are exactly automated at machine level or partially automated at production line/cell level, 3-
There are lots of software systems in use and production systems are exactly automated at
production line/cell level or partially automated in factory level.
Dimension Traceability . Scale ranging from 0-no traceability, 1-partial traceability at machin
level, low end-to-end visibility or production customization, 2- Operation process traceability
provided at production line/cell level in the digital environment and end-to-end visibility is at
medium level as well as the production customization level, 3- Operation process traceability
provided at factory level in the digital environment and end-to-end visibility is at high level as
well as the production customization level.
Dimension ‘Triggering’ Scale ranging from 0-absent, 1-mobile, cloud, virtualization, 3d
printing hardly in use, 2-Triggering technologies (i.e. mobile and virtualization technologies,
cloud,3D printers etc.) are being used at medium level; 3-are being used at high level.
Dimension Manufacturability. Scale ranging from 0-absent, 1-Is simulated during
development at low level, 2- Manufacturability and terms of use of the product is simulated
during product development at medium level, to 3- Manufacturability and terms of use of the
product is simulated during product development at high level.
Dimension Dashboard. Scale ranging from 0-absent, 1-IT dashboards are not in use and
machines/systems can be controlled through IT to some extent; 2-IT dashboards are in use and
machine to machine communications are available; 3- IT dashboards are in use and
interoperability principle is applied completely.
Solution Area Production
Digital job cards
Display of production schedule around the shop floor
Monitoring of lead time
Problem and context oriented display of information for operators
Automated bottleneck identification in operations
Simulation of tools and processes for virtual process planning
Digitized work instructions, photos and assembly procedures
242 Jenny Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 217 (2023) 238–247
J. Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 5

4. Results

4.1. Quick Scan Results

In order to select a sample for the quick scan survey, a list was drawn up of 40 companies regularly interacting
with the university already and companies met at networking events. The survey results were not obtained under
comparable circumstances, because of the differences in background of the researcher, expertise of the interviewee
(in some cases the commercial manager was interviewed, or in other cases the IT manager or operations manager,
with quite different discussions as a result) and duration of the interviews. The quick scans hardly ever lead to a precise
measurement in terms of the indicators mentioned in the left part of Table 2, but 38 of the collected scans at least
described if and how smart technology (see Table 1) was used. This is shown in Table 4 where the scan results are
summarized and compared with measurements by Statistics Netherlands (CBS). The THUAS selection was biased
towards companies with an interest in product or process innovation, which can be explained by the fact that such
companies actively seek cooperation with universities. No companies that used Additive Manufacturing were in this
dataset.

Table 4. Survey (scan) results on Digitization compared

Manufacturing Additive Robots Operator Support Horizontal/Vertical

Manufacturing (implementation phase) Integration
(implementation
phase)
National level (measured by 16% 25% No data No data
CBS [2])
South Holland 0% 37% in production, 16% in production, 11% 74% (but in very different
(measured by THUAS) 18% in test considers implementation ways)

Manufacturing IoT AI/Data Analytics Cloud

National level 6% 23% 53%
(measured by CBS [2])
South Holland (measured by 63% 44% No data
THUAS)

4.2. Proposed Improvements of the Quick Scan

After comparing the THUAS scan with Akdil’s scan [see the right half of Table 2] it was concluded that
Akdil’s would have served the purpose of the quick scan better as this maturity scale already measures in reference to
practical use of smart technology instead of by abstract indicators. This therefore might have led to better results.
Another observation (and confirmation of what could be expected based on section 2) is that companies with a firm
backbone of well-integrated product data, together with well-organized shop floor and inventory management,
formulate more and further-fetching plans towards Smart Manufacturing. Horizontal and vertical integration are
considered to be key features of I4.0. As stated in [29]: “Horizontal integration through value networks, converging
information technology systems at different stages of a manufacturing and business planning processes involving data
exchange both within a company and between several companies; end-to-end digital integration of engineering across
the entire value chain; and vertical integration and networked manufacturing, converging information technology
systems at different hierarchical levels for delivering an end-to-end solution”. Horizontal Integration refers to the
connectivity at the operational shopfloor layer [30]. On this layer vendor-specific standards and legacy machines can
hinder integration. Vertical integration between enterprise and shopfloor layer requires a gateway that can be provided
by the OPC-UA protocol. Integrated manufacturing as described by Yu [31] is the degree to which different processes
-with their different applications- are being integrated (for instance integration between CAD, PDM, ERP and CAM
software). Then the last aspect is that of product-centered production: the tendency that individual products ‘carry’
 Jenny Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 217 (2023) 238–247 243
6 J. Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

their own requirements for processes and resources and communicate this directly with the shopfloor layer (for
instance by means of a tag and a unique product id), following the principles of holonic manufacturing [32], cyber-
physical systems and adopting technology like IIoT [29]. This introduces additional direct and non-hierarchic data
exchange in the production system that is facilitated by protocols like MQTT. For instance, [33] and [34] explain how
the once hierarchical structure of manufacturing automation is evolving towards decentral, self-organized and service-
oriented systems in the I4.0 paradigm.

Dimension Horizontal Shopfloor Integration: 0-only

Dimension Computer Integrated Manufacturing: 0-absent
(duplicating info from application to application), 1-some
(partial) integration by (home-made) scripts or workflows, 2-
some definition of master data, (manufacturing) engineering &
ERP partially integrated by scripts or workflows; 3-well-
defined workflows, single-source-of-truth principle for master
data applied
manual information exchange at shopfloor, 1-partial or ad-
hoc, 2-automatic but vendor-specific exchange at
production line/cell level, 3-smooth exchange of process
data at shop level, mainly standardized, remote control
possible
Dimension Vertical Integration: 0-only manual coding at
shopfloor, reporting to Enterprise Level by lists/excel, 1-
some (partial) integration by means of MES-like
functionality, 2-ERP functions (partially) as gateway
between floor and Enterprise level 3-shop floor operations
seamlessly link with Enterprise order planning bi-
directionally (i.e. ERP-MES integration), paperless
production
Dimension Product Centeredness: 0-absent (no labels,
large batcher, no re-use of engineering data), 1-some
attempts at product customization/modularization/reuse; 2-
some tracking of individual product entities in place,
automatic matching of products and resources to some
extent possible, some modularization and reuse of product
modules is practiced ; 3-all relevant product entities tagged
with unique id’s, well-documented manufacturability
requirements, real-time process flow monitoring,
configure-to-order based on product modules

Fig. 2. Integration Model

Best practices of how to successfully implement I4.0 technology are not or hardly available. Pinto [12]
mentions explicitly that a good interface with the ERP system is required as a success factor. This was often mentioned
by interviewees as well. Operationalization of ‘integration maturity’ based on a IT reference architecture requires
much in-depth understanding of the IT integration topic, at a fairly abstract level, from both interviewee and
interviewer. The integration aspect is partly covered in Akdil’s scan [14] but also described in a quite abstract manner.
The indicators for Product-centeredness are partly covered in Akdil’s Traceability category, but that gives no insight
in the progress towards the holonic approach. Based on the evaluation of the first version quick scan it was decided
that in order to close this gap maturity indicators for IT/OT integration should be defined at a more granular level,
with more ‘hands-on-terminology’ than existing maturity scans. Such indicators are shown in Figure 2, with an
‘integration scale’ that ranges from absent to mature. Mature Horizontal Shopfloor Integration is characterized for
instance by a lack of manual and/or vendor-specific data exchange. Mature Vertical Integration is characterized by
intensive use of the ERP system on both shopfloor, plant and enterprise level. Mature Computer Integrated
Manufacturing can be recognized by realization of ‘single source of truth’, data records that are only modified in one
of the applications. Product-centeredness, finally, can be recognized by strict separation of product identification and
classification and these identifiers are used intensively to manage the realization process[14].

4.3. Results of the in-depth scans

After execution of the 38 quick-scans, for 10 companies an in-depth analysis was made based on a site visit and
interview. A further analysis of these in-depth analyses results in the following observations: Many companies collect
real-time data: at the customer, in their own plant, but also as a ‘by-product’ of operation. Internal use of data analytics
244 Jenny Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 217 (2023) 238–247
J. Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 7

is mostly aimed at automation (bin picking, fault detection, quality assessment). Concerns are how to organize storage
and selection of data and making sure that workers don’t feel mistrusted. Another concern mentioned often is the lack
of integration with the IT/OT that runs the plant. Integration requires conformance to protocols, uniformity in data
definition, and companies in general feel too much dependent on what machine and suppliers offer. Often workarounds
are needed for data-exchange, involving a lot of manual input. Working with portals for quick and seamless ordering
and sub-contracting could be good incentive to improve upon this. Questions arise on risk management as well: who
can help to evaluate ROI when introducing technology like manufacturing or transport robots? This requires deep
understanding of the production process as the benefits lie not necessarily in reducing labor or transport effort as such,
but in flexibility, less handling of parts, less searching. Getting more grip on real-time status of the production process
is perceived as valuable, as long as operators get insight into trade-offs (for instance between Overall Equipment
Effectiveness (OEE), order throughput time and overall order throughput time) and get decision-support instead of
being ruled by algorithm. Table 5 links these observations with the topics selected for the SI toolkit in The table also
shows what technologies were suggested to implement for a particular solution area (being IIoT and tags for
optimizing material flow and tracking, introduction of a manufacturability check by means of simulation and an
operator dashboard to display context-oriented info for operators. Companies are also interested in how Augmented
Reality can improve assembly, sorting and commissioning and how Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs) could
prevent idle times and interruptions at the shopfloor caused by operators searching for materials or components. These
last two topics are not yet in scope of the toolkit under development, but are a logical extension in a next development
phase.

Table 5. Company Problems & Solution Areas in SI Toolkit for SMEs

Problems/Concerns/Questions Solution Area

Parts in transport get temporarily lost, are stored on places Optimization of material flow and travel within operation, Real time
Logistics that are not easily accessible, operators suffer ‘waste’ of tracking of internal jobs (location, status) [Using IIoT (Tags)].
& walking and searching, difficulties to maneuver in a small
Scheduling shop

Production Deal with lack of integration with the IT/OT that runs the
& plant? Avoid workarounds? How to organize storage,
Scheduling selection, presentation of data? How to keep ‘ownership’
with operators? How to improve work instructions for
assembly, sorting and commissioning? Determine ROI when
return is in flexibility, less handling of parts, less searching?
Simulation of tools and processes for virtual process planning
(bottlenecks). [Manufacturability Check].
Problem and context-oriented display of information for operators
(incl schedule, job card, bottlenecks) [Operator Dashboard]
Digitized work instructions, photos and assembly procedures

4.4. Applying the improved scan and SME-SI toolkit

This last section brings together the results of the improved digital maturity scan. To illustrate this, four case
companies are shown with their maturity assessment (for a selection of dimensions) scored following the scales
defined in Table 2, their main improvement question and the relevant solution area/tool (from Table 5) that should be
implemented to solve this question.

Table 6. Illustration of application integration model to evaluate I4.0 development and innovation at SME manufacturing companies

case 1: SheetMet 2: MechTron 3: WoodCab 4: CareMan

Company Sheet metal component Metal and mechatronic Wood component, Care support product
Description manufacturer assembly manufacturer assemblies and tiny manufacturer
houses manufacturer
 Jenny Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 217 (2023) 238–247 245
8 J. Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

Production Machines are semi-
System autonomous, programming
is manual, no coupling
between work cells [1-2]
Machines are semi- Parts automatically milled Hardly any automation, focus
autonomous, employees on CNC machine, on design and development,
get freedom to optimize assembly and transport is production is single piece or
their work individually, manually [1-2]. small series [0]
therefore manually
programming at machine,
transport by AMRs,
manual assembly [2].

Vertical ERP dashboards on shop
Integration floor for order registration,
ERP defines order flow;
has API for bidirectional
communication with other
applications [3]
Horizontal No OT network [0]
Integration
Product- Products not labelled but
centeredness can be traced via ERP
system [2]
ERP and machines
coupled through Microsoft
Azure IOT, automatic
registration machine data
in ERP under development
[2-3]
IT and OT network [2-3]
All products and tools
have unique id, and can be
scanned by barcode reader
to find its digital
specification(s) in ERP [2-
3].
Digital architecture is Under exploration, no ERP
being designed, no storage system yet [0]
and product registration,
CNC machines gets
orders and CAD models
via network connection
[1-2]
No OT network [0] No OT network [0]
No product labelling yet, Every product considered as
but under investigation. prototype [0]
Products are very modular
and designs are (partly)
reused (CAD library). [2-
3]

Improvement Transport automation
Question technically and
economically feasible at
compact shop floor?
How KPIs can be
visualized effectively to
give insight in process
improvements?
How task registration of
manual assembly can be
done automatically?
Assembly of relatively How to setup product and order
simple products as registration?
wooden panels technically
and economically feasible
by robots?

Relevant Real time tracking of Problem and context- Simulation of tools and Real time tracking of internal
Solution internal jobs (location, oriented display of processes for virtual jobs (location, status); Digitized
Area/Tool status). Using IIoT (Tags). information for operators process planning work instructions, photos and
(incl schedule, job card, (bottlenecks). Check assembly procedures.
bottlenecks) Manufacturability.

The table shows that CareMan could learn from WoodCab how to organize modular product design and reuse of
engineering data by means of a CAD library (increase maturity on product-centeredness). WoodCab could learn from
SheetMet and MechTron on how to integrate their order data with a time registration system at shop floor level
(increase maturity on vertical integration). It also shows that CareMan, because of its lower maturity in all dimensions,
must invest first to get its production system and integration to the ‘existence-level’, for instance by implementing an
ERP system, before subsequent steps can be made.

5. Conclusions

This paper presents a selection of solution areas that could contribute to relevant I4.0 transitions and enhanced
digital maturity for SME companies. The question of what the most relevant transitions and areas of technology are
to which an SME-SI toolkit should contribute could not be answered fully by means of the chosen setup as the scope
of scan and toolkit were limited to a selection of transitions/technologies. These limits were partly practical, but also
because of SMEs’ input on what they considered most promising. The paper contributes to methods for SME digital
maturity assessment by introducing a two-step scan approach in conjunction with a toolkit of promising technologies
and adds to Akdil’s scan a more granular assessment of ‘Integration Aspects’. The approach is tailored to particular
problems and questions of manufacturing SMEs in the Netherlands (Zuid-Holland region). The resulting scan is a
mixture of a generic instrument for a first assessment that can subsequently be customized to elaborate on particular
needs of a company. The fact that companies actively contribute best-practices, suggestions and maturity indicators
to the toolkit improves the effectivity of the approach. To obtain further data on the ‘digital maturity’ of SME
246 Jenny Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 217 (2023) 238–247
J. Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 9

companies in South Holland a larger, more representative sample of companies is needed. Additionally the quick
scans executed for this paper could be re-evaluated, using the improved scan as proposed in section 4.2. The setup is
such that the transition program will gradually be improved as the toolkit and scan are refined by every scan and
implementation. Results between the different research groups in the Netherlands working on the scans are still to be
systematically compared, before this can be scaled up to national level. Further work will concentrate on development
of concrete tools for the solution areas presented in this paper. The biggest challenge anticipated is to abstract the
cases (and toolkit implementations) of individual SMEs into more generally applicable template solutions.

Acknowledgements

The ‘digitization scans’ were executed as a part of the Smart Manufacturing Industrial Technology Zuid-Holland
(SMITZH) program (supported by the province of Zuid-Holland).

Appendix A. In depth assessment Metal Manufacturer

The case considers a sheet metal manufacturing company that produces single-piece and small series with short
production and delivery times. The order flow through the shop floor is controlled and monitored by ERP software.
Production cells all interact with the ERP software such that machine operators directly have access to the workload
for each machine and operators can directly register progress. The production machines are modern, semi-automatic,
and can be quickly adapted and programmed by the operator based on part specifications available from the ERP
system. Loading, unloading and transportation of parts is also performed by operators. Through interviewing the
company owner an initial evaluation of the possible waste and room for improvements has been made. The capacity
of machines, employees and workspace is rather effectively and efficiently used. However, parts being transported
through the shop are sometimes temporarily lost or stored in places that are not quickly accessible. In addition,
operators often walk through the shop floor pulling pallet jacks, which causes interruptions in their workflow.
Therefore, optimizing the intralogistics of the shop floor seems to be most promising solution to reduce the order
delivery time while keeping the same product quality. At least two solutions can be distinguished:
1) Tag each part and track the positions of pallet jacks using a real-time localization system (RTLS) to keep track
of each part and its location in the shop floor.
2) Tag each part and perform the transport functions by autonomous mobile robots (AMRs).
The use of AMRs on relatively small shop floors and comparable use cases are not reviewed in literature yet [35].
Prices are usually not specified, such that return on investment cannot be calculated. These reasons hamper the
introduction of AMRs on the shop floor.

References

[1] “Key Enabling Technologies-Advanced Manufacturing.” https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and innovation/research-area/industrial-research-

and-innovation/key-enabling-technologies/advanced-manufacturing_en (accessed May 26, 2022).
[2] R. Kleingeld, “ICT-gebruik bij bedrijven,” Oct. 2021. Accessed: May 05, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://longreads.cbs.nl/ict-kennis-en-
economie-2021/samenvatting/
[3] Team Smart Industry, “Smart Industry Implementatieagenda 2018-2021,” Feb. 2018. Accessed: May 05, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://smartindustry.nl/downloads/2c3a0f/SI%20implementatieagenda%202018%20DEF%20LR.PDF
[4] E. Rauch, M. Unterhofer, R. A. Rojas, L. Gualtieri, M. Woschank, and D. T. Matt, “A Maturity Level-Based Assessment Tool to Enhance the
Implementation of Industry 4.0 in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 9, p. 3559, Apr. 2020, doi:
10.3390/su12093559.
[5] D. T. Matt and E. Rauch, “SME 4.0: The role of small-and medium-sized enterprises in the digital transformation,” Industry 4.0 for SMEs:
Challenges, Opportunities and Requirements, pp. 3–36, 2020, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-25425-4_1.
[6] D. T. Matt, V. Modrák, and H. Zsifkovits, Industry 4.0 for smes: Challenges, opportunities and requirements. 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-
25425-4.
[7] I. A. R. Torn and T. H. J. Vaneker, “Mass personalization with industry 4.0 by SMEs: A concept for collaborative networks,” Procedia
Manuf, vol. 28, pp. 135–141, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.12.022.
[8] M. Ingaldi and R. Ulewicz, “Problems with the Implementation of Industry 4.0 in Enterprises from the SME Sector,” Sustainability, vol. 12,
no. 1, p. 217, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.3390/su12010217.
[9] P. Schmitt, J. Schmitt, and B. Engelmann, “Evaluation of proceedings for SMEs to conduct I4.0 projects,” in Procedia CIRP, 2020, vol. 86,
pp. 257–263. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.007.
[10] S. Mittal, D. Romero, and T. Wuest, “Towards a Smart Manufacturing Toolkit for SMEs The Operator 4.0-Towards Socially Sustainable
Factories of the Future View project Towards a Smart Manufacturing Toolkit for SMEs,” 2018. [Online]. Available:
 Jenny Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 217 (2023) 238–247 247
10 J. Coenen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324969272
[11] M. Ghobakhloo and M. Iranmanesh, “Digital transformation success under Industry 4.0: a strategic guideline for manufacturing SMEs,”
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1533–1556, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-11-2020-0455.
[12] B. Pinto, F. J. G. Silva, T. Costa, R. D. S. G. Campilho, and M. T. Pereira, “A strategic model to take the first step towards industry 4.0 in
SMEs,” Procedia Manuf, vol. 38, no. 2019, pp. 637–645, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.082.
[13] R. Brozzi, R. D. D’Amico, G. Pasetti Monizza, C. Marcher, M. Riedl, and D. Matt, Design of self-assessment tools to measure industry 4.0
readiness. A methodological approach for craftsmanship SMEs, vol. 540. Springer International Publishing, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-
01614-2_52.
[14] K. Y. Akdil, A. Ustundag, and E. Cevikcan, “Maturity and Readiness Model for Industry 4.0 Strategy,” 2018, pp. 61–94. doi: 10.1007/978-
3-319-57870-5_4.
[15] A. Kieroth, M. Brunner, N. Bachmann, H. Jodlbauer, and W. Kurz, “Investigation on the acceptance of an Industry 4.0 maturity model and
improvement possibilities,” Procedia Comput Sci, vol. 200, pp. 428–437, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.241.
[16] A. Schumacher, S. Erol, and W. Sihn, “A Maturity Model for Assessing Industry 4.0 Readiness and Maturity of Manufacturing Enterprises,”
Procedia CIRP, vol. 52, pp. 161–166, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.040.
[17] S. Mittal, M. A. Khan, D. Romero, T. Wuest, and W. Virginia, “A critical review of smart manufacturing & Industry 4.0 maturity models:
Implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),” J Manuf Syst, vol. 49, pp. 194–214, 2018.
[18] D. Dikhanbayeva, S. Shaikholla, Z. Suleiman, and A. Turkyilmaz, “Assessment of Industry 4.0 Maturity Models by Design Principles,”
Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 23, p. 9927, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12239927.
[19] T. Masood and P. Sonntag, “Industry 4.0: Adoption challenges and benefits for SMEs,” Comput Ind, vol. 121, p. 103261, Oct. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.compind.2020.103261.
[20] F. Galati and B. Bigliardi, “Industry 4.0: Emerging themes and future research avenues using a text mining approach,” Comput Ind, vol. 109,
pp. 100–113, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2019.04.018.
[21] M. Bejlegaard, T. D. Brunoe, J. Bossen, A.-L. Andersen, and K. Nielsen, “Reconfigurable Manufacturing Potential in Small and Medium
Enterprises with Low Volume and High Variety,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 51, pp. 32–37, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.055.
[22] S. Mittal, M. A. Khan, J. K. Purohit, K. Menon, D. Romero, and T. Wuest, “A smart manufacturing adoption framework for SMEs,” Int J
Prod Res, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1555–1573, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1661540.
[23] G. G. Meyer, K. Främling, and J. Holmström, “Intelligent Products: A survey,” Comput Ind, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 137–148, Apr. 2009, doi:
10.1016/j.compind.2008.12.005.
[24] Y. Chen, “Integrated and Intelligent Manufacturing: Perspectives and Enablers,” Engineering, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 588–595, Oct. 2017, doi:
10.1016/J.ENG.2017.04.009.
[25] J. Qin, Y. Liu, and R. Grosvenor, “A Categorical Framework of Manufacturing for Industry 4.0 and Beyond,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 52, pp.
173–178, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.08.005.
[26] A. G. Frank, L. S. Dalenogare, and N. F. Ayala, “Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies,” Int J
Prod Econ, vol. 210, pp. 15–26, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.004.
[27] B. Schönfuß, D. McFarlane, G. Hawkridge, L. Salter, N. Athanassopoulou, and L. de Silva, “A catalogue of digital solution areas for
prioritising the needs of manufacturing SMEs,” Comput Ind, vol. 133, p. 103532, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2021.103532.
[28] D. Romero et al., “Towards an Operator 4.0 Typology: A Human-Centric Perspective on the Fourth Industrial Revolution Technologies
ProAct-Proactive Assmbly Systems View project MOTION View project TOWARDS AN OPERATOR 4.0 TYPOLOGY: A HUMAN-
CENTRIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE FOURTH IN,” CIE46 Proceedings, no. October, pp. 29–31, 2016, [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309609488
[29] D. G. S. Pivoto, L. F. F. de Almeida, R. da Rosa Righi, J. J. P. C. Rodrigues, A. B. Lugli, and A. M. Alberti, “Cyber-physical systems
architectures for industrial internet of things applications in Industry 4.0: A literature review,” J Manuf Syst, vol. 58, pp. 176–192, Jan. 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.11.017.
[30] A. P. Kalogeras, J. V. Gialelis, C. E. Alexakos, M. J. Georgoudakis, and S. A. Koubias, “Vertical Integration of Enterprise Industrial
Systems Utilizing Web Services,” IEEE Trans Industr Inform, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 120–128, May 2006, doi: 10.1109/TII.2006.875507.
[31] C. Yu, X. Xu, and Y. Lu, “Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Cyber-Physical Systems and Cloud Manufacturing – Concepts and
relationships,” Manuf Lett, vol. 6, pp. 5–9, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.mfglet.2015.11.005.
[32] P. Valckenaers, “Perspective on holonic manufacturing systems: PROSA becomes ARTI,” Comput Ind, vol. 120, Sep. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.compind.2020.103226.
[33] E. Y. Nakagawa, P. O. Antonino, F. Schnicke, R. Capilla, T. Kuhn, and P. Liggesmeyer, “Industry 4.0 reference architectures: State of the
art and future trends,” Comput Ind Eng, vol. 156, p. 107241, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107241.
[34] VDI/VDE-Gesellschaft, “Cyber-Physical Systems: Chancen und Nutzen aus Sicht der Automation,” Apr. 2013. Accessed: May 06, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.vdi.de/ueber-uns/presse/publikationen/details/cyber-physical-systems-chancen-und-nutzen-aus-sicht-der-
automation
[35] J. Gnap, Z. Riha, and S. Semanova, “Proposal of Methodology to Calculate Necessary Number of Autonomous Trucks for Trolleys and
Efficiency Evaluation,” Open Engineering, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 255–264, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1515/eng-2020-0013.