Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: 0953-7287 (Print) 1366-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Development of maturity model for assessing the

implementation of Industry 4.0: learning from
theory and practice

Aniruddha Anil Wagire, Rohit Joshi, Ajay Pal Singh Rathore & Rakesh Jain

To cite this article: Aniruddha Anil Wagire, Rohit Joshi, Ajay Pal Singh Rathore & Rakesh Jain
(2020): Development of maturity model for assessing the implementation of Industry 4.0: learning
from theory and practice, Production Planning & Control, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1744763

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1744763

Published online: 26 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1744763

Development of maturity model for assessing the implementation of Industry

4.0: learning from theory and practice
Aniruddha Anil Wagirea, Rohit Joshib, Ajay Pal Singh Rathorea and Rakesh Jaina
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur, Jaipur, India; bIndian Institute of Management
Shillong, Shillong, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Today many manufacturing firms expect a significant impact of ‘Industry 4.0’ on their supply chains, Received 8 October 2019
operations, and business models. However, its complex characteristics are yet to be fully compre- Accepted 13 March 2020
hended by most of them. As a result, there are several apprehensions pertaining to its structure,
KEYWORDS
techno-organisational capabilities, and methodologies for shaping the vision of Industry 4.0. We pro-
Industry 4.0; maturity
pose an Industry 4.0 maturity model, which is empirically grounded and technology-focussed for model; readiness
assessing the maturity level of Indian manufacturing organisations. The model comprises of 7 dimen- assessment; indian
sions and 38 maturity items. Further, the model is validated in an auto-component manufacturing manufacturing industry;
company to reinforce the learning from the model. The results reveal that the company is in ‘Digital maturity index;
Novice’ maturity level with a maturity score of 2.88 against the highest maturity score of 5. The study maturity level
demonstrates that the model is validated in a real-life environment and is easy for self-assessment.

1. Introduction is interconnected in real-time and manufacturing systems are

In the manufacturing landscape, organisations are facing sev-
eral challenges like demographic changes, globalisation, cut-
throat competition and faster depletion of natural resources
(World Economic forum 2018). Organisations keep on
addressing these challenges from time-to-time through
growing technological advancements (Sharma 2017). These
technological advancements are anticipated to realise sub-
stantial improvements in industrial productivity, flexibility,
operational efficiency and customer interaction to a great
extent (Hermann, Pentek, and Otto 2016; Helo and Hao,
2017; Bibby and Dehe 2018). Nonetheless, this rapid progres-
sion in technology brings with it considerable barriers for its
adoption. They range from organisational, technological, eco-
nomic, socio-political to legal barriers (Zhou, Liu, and Zhou
2015; Fatorachian and Kazemi 2018; Schroeder et al. 2019).
To counterweight these challenges, manufacturing organisa-
tions will need certain competencies to manage their supply
and value chain with immense agility and increased flexibility
(Agrifoglio et al. 2017; Fatorachian and Kazemi 2018). Digital
and physical infrastructure are the prime enablers for organi-
sations to have complete integration and cooperation along
the product life cycle (Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016).
The future trend in production technology is expected to
be entirely different from the existing practices of technology
adoption. Currently, several technologies are sporadically
adopted and are working in the silos (Kagermann et al. 2013;
Lichtblau et al. 2015). The new production environment will be
highly digitalised wherein the entire value chain of companies
highly automated with in-built intelligence which are driven
autonomously (Bibby and Dehe 2018). The transformation in
the manufacturing environment is expected to deliver huge
benefits in terms of operational and product flexibility, prod-
uctivity and process efficiency, increased visibility, better cus-
tomer service and shorter product launch time (Rockwell
Automation 2014; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2016).
Academicians and practitioners believe that this on-going
disruptive transformation is yet another industrial revolution
which is symbolised as ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ or
‘Industry 4.0’ (Kagermann et al. 2013; Liao et al. 2017).
Industry 4.0 develops digital networks consisting of intelli-
gent and self-optimised factories wherein man, machine,
material and systems of production are completely inte-
grated and work autonomously with a minimum manual
intervention (Keskin et al. 2018; Mittal et al. 2018). Further,
the companies in the supply chain are digitally connected
(Hofmann and Ru €sch 2017; Ghobakhloo 2018) and horizon-
tally integrated with each other that enable unprecedented
collaboration and partnership among stakeholders (Hermann,
Pentek, and Otto 2016; Akdil, Ustundag, and Cevikcan 2018).
The linking of Information Technology (IT) with Operation
Technology (OT) will support the enterprise to optimise deci-
sion making in real-time which eventually improves the visu-
alisation, resource utilisation, and profitability (Zhou, Liu, and
Zhou 2015; Go €lzer and Fritzsche 2017).
The varieties of emerging technologies such as Cyber-
Physical Systems (CPSs), Internet of Things and Services (IoT/
IoS), Cloud Computing (CC), Big Data (BD), Big Data analytics

CONTACT Aniruddha Anil Wagire awagire@yahoo.com Mechanical Engineering Department, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, India
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. A. WAGIRE ET AL.
(BDA) and Cyber Security (CS) are key pillars of Industry 4.0
(Zhou, Liu, and Zhou 2015; Oesterreich and Teuteberg 2016;
Agrifoglio et al. 2017; Basl 2018; Kamble, Gunasekaran, and
Dhone 2019; Wagire, Rathore, and Jain 2019). Manufacturing
executives today are confronted with a variety of promising
new technologies, all of them offering some combination of
cost savings, quality improvements and increased flexibility.
The leading manufacturers and consulting firms (Lichtblau
et al. 2015; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2016) observed that
this revolution is unavoidable and the economies across the
world cannot afford to ignore or miss it. Although Industry
4.0 is evolved in the developed nations for securing the
future of their manufacturing industry (Kagermann et al.
2013), it is bound to influence manufacturing organisations
from developing economies as well (Luthra and Mangla
2018; Kamble, Gunasekaran, and Sharma 2018). If ignored,
Industry 4.0 will negatively affect the production base of
developing nations whose strength has been rooted in low-
cost manufacturing for decades (Kamble, Gunasekaran and
Gawankar 2018). Hence this revolution is ineluctable for the
manufacturing organisations from both developed and
developing nations (Mehra et al. 2017). A developing country
like India has a strong domestic market and has an abundant
opportunity to improve upon the manufacturing technology.
The manufacturing industry contribution to the nation’s
Gross Domestic Products (GDP) is almost 16% of its total
GDP. Indian manufacturing sector still has enormous poten-
tial to improve its contribution in GDP by embarking on
Industry 4.0 at an early stage and consequently reap the
benefits therefrom (Mehra et al. 2017). It is also noticed that
every nation and company needs to devise an indigenous
and tailored road for Industry 4.0. Therefore it is necessary
for organisations to assess own goals and the current situ-
ation or status-quo (Schuh et al. 2018) in order to decide
future action plan for Industry 4.0.
However, it is a fact that Industry 4.0 is a relatively recent
phenomenon among the academicians and practitioners
working in the manufacturing domain. Industry 4.0 is not so
far adequately standardised, spread and lacks the clear boun-
daries (Schuh et al. 2018). The majority of organisations are
still unclear about the benefits of Industry 4.0 and its impli-
cations to their businesses (Akdil, Ustundag, and Cevikcan
2018; Schuh et al. 2018). Literature suggests that the compa-
nies are facing serious difficulties for understanding the con-
cept from their organisational perspective. Even
organisations failed to relate Industry 4.0 to a specific indus-
try perspective (Oesterreich and Teuteberg 2016; Bibby and
Dehe 2018). Further, they are unable to determine the ‘as-it-
is’ state of an organisation regarding Industry 4.0
(Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016; Bibby and Dehe 2018;
Schuh et al. 2018) and therefore incapable to recognise the
substantive action plan and projects (Lichtblau et al. 2015).
In order to overcome these difficulties and to support the
organisations in the successful realisation of Industry 4.0,
new methods and tools are needed. These tools may facili-
tate organisations in identifying their strengths and weakness
and accordingly assist in prioritising the actions for improve-
ments (Kagermann et al. 2013; Lichtblau et al. 2015).
The study aims to develop an assessment framework that
will support organisations for evaluating its ‘As-Is’ situation
and suggests the areas of improvement towards Industry 4.0
journey. The framework is in the form of maturity model
having 38 maturity measurement items unequally categor-
ised into organisation, people and technology-focussed 7
dimensions. ‘People and Culture’, ‘Industry 4.0 awareness’,
‘Organisational Strategy’, ‘Value chain and Processes’, ‘Smart
Manufacturing Technology’, ‘Product and Services oriented
Technology’ and ‘Industry 4.0 base Technology’ are the
dimensions comprises in the maturity model to evaluate the
maturity level of the organisation. The maturity items and
dimensions are prioritised based on its importance levels
resoluted using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP). The
model is tested, validated and implemented across five
Indian manufacturing companies out of which one case from
auto-component manufacturing industry is presented in
this study.
2. Literature review
Since the capabilities of an organisation develop through dif-
ferent maturing stages over a period of time (Kohlegger,
Maier, and Thalmann 2009), evaluating its maturity level is
recognised as a topic of great interest in Industry 4.0
research domain. It is imperative for organisations to under-
stand its ‘maturing state’ or ‘as-it-is’ state for Industry 4.0
because the digital transformation evolves through continual
significant changes in the business strategy, processes and
technologies and information systems (Voß and Pawlowski
2019). The purpose of readiness assessment and maturity
evaluation is to guide the organisation and its stakeholders
through their maturing process or transformation phases
(Kohlegger, Maier, and Thalmann 2009) in a more effective
and efficient way. The next subsection throws some light on
the maturity and readiness assessment tools presented in
the extant literature.
2.1. Introduction to maturity model and readiness
assessment tool
The assessment of manufacturing organisations’ maturity is
an important starting point for the effective realisation of
Industry 4.0. In general, the concept ‘Maturity’ is defined as
‘state of being complete, perfect, or ready’ (Simpson and
Weiner 1989). It suggests improvements in the development
of business processes, systems, technology and organisation
as a whole (Kohlegger, Maier, and Thalmann 2009). Through
a course of time, the systems of organisations accomplish its
future state by consistent improvements in its capabilities
(Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016). The maturity can be eval-
uated qualitatively and/or quantitatively; either discrete or in
a continuous manner (Kohlegger, Maier, and Thalmann
2009). To measure the maturity of systems, various ‘Maturity
Models’ have been developed in the past (Ngai et al. 2013;
Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016; Vivares, Sarache, and
Hurtado 2018). Kohlegger, Maier, and Thalmann (2009)
describe the maturity model as ‘phases of increasing

quantitative or qualitative capability … . in order to assess
its advances with respect to defined focus areas.’ According
to Becker, Knackstedt, and Po €ppelbuß (2009), the maturity
model can be understood as ‘artifacts which serve to solve
the problems of determining a company’s status quo of its
capabilities and deriving measures for improvement there-
from’. At large, ‘Maturity Model’ is ‘a sequence of stages
used to assess situations, and guide potential improvements’
(Vivares, Sarache, and Hurtado 2018). It can be utilised to
find out the ‘as-it-is’ state of an organisation on the path of
transformation. The maturity models frequently mentioned
as readiness assessment models (Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn
2016) in the extant literature with the aim to attain starting
point and to facilitate the initialisation of the development
process. However, Pacchini et al. (2019) mentions that matur-
ity is different from readiness and has given interesting
approach to evaluate degree of readiness of organisations
for implementation of Industry 4.0 related technologies.
The term ‘readiness’ is defined as ‘the state of being fully
ready or prepared for something’ or ‘willing to do something’
(Simpson and Weiner 1989) and its assessment occurs before
maturing process or stage (Pacchini et al. 2019). It can be
thought of as a forward-looking state which is on the verge
of realisation in the future or has almost arrived (Schumacher,
Erol, and Sihn 2016). Pacchini et al. (2019) describes readiness
as the ‘state in which an organization is ready to accomplish
a task’ and maturity as ‘the level of evolution that an organ-
ization has accomplished with respect to a task’.
In recent time, the ‘maturity models’ and ‘readiness mod-
els’ have captured growing attention in the areas of engin-
eering including energy and utility management for
sustainable manufacturing processes (Ngai et al. 2013), pro-
ject management (Backlund, Chroneer, and Sundqvist 2014),
designing a portfolio management (Nikkhou, Taghizadeh,
and Hajiyakhchali 2016), business process management
(Tarhan, Turetken, and Reijers 2016) and manufacturing sys-
tems (Vivares, Sarache, and Hurtado 2018). A handful number
of maturity and readiness models are available targeting the
digitalisation and/or Industry 4.0 research areas including IT
Management (Becker, Knackstedt, and Po €ppelbuß 2009),
Information Systems (Proença and Borbinha 2016), Industry
4.0 (Lichtblau et al. 2015; Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016;
Bibby and Dehe 2018; Lucato et al. 2019; Pacchini et al.
2019) and smart manufacturing (Mittal et al. 2018). However,
the scarcity of scientifically developed and empirically vali-
dated maturity and readiness models to assess Industry 4.0
maturity of manufacturing organisations appears to be a
research gap (Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016; Go €kalp,
Şener, and Eren 2017; Mittal et al. 2018) that calls for fur-
ther studies.
2.2. Review of existing readiness and maturity
assessment tools
A systematic literature review approach is followed to collect
existing maturity models and readiness assessment tools
related to Industry 4.0. Industry 4.0 maturity models and
readiness assessment tools are a starting point for the
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 3
identification of the existing models. The various combina-
tions of keywords are used to identify relevant articles such
as ‘Industry 4.0’, ‘Industrie 4.0’, ‘Smart Manufacturing’ and
‘Maturity Model’, ‘Readiness Model’ and ‘Readiness
Assessment Tool’. The keyword search is performed in vari-
ous electronic databases like Scopus, Web of Science, Taylor
and Francis, IEEE Xplore, Science Direct, Emerald, Springer,
SAGE and other few web portals such as Google Scholar and
Google search engine. 96 articles have appeared in the
search results through the combination of keyword searches.
To get more insight into the maturity model search, the
references listed in these papers are also reviewed. These
efforts ended up with 13 more maturity models related to
our research interest. This study includes articles published in
the journals and conference proceedings from the year 2011
when term Industry 4.0 was coined, till the end of
September 2019. The other articles like white papers, maga-
zine articles or reports, etc. are also included in the dataset.
The authors employed a systematic article refining process
by introducing explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria as the
first elimination process of the articles. In the first step, the
keywords, abstract and introduction section of each article
are reviewed and properly evaluated for its suitability and
relevance to our research objectives. 24 articles are extracted
at the end of this article refining process. These articles are
completely reviewed to its full length for understanding its
scope in the context of Industry 4.0 maturity or readiness
model. The authors also identified few maturity models
developed by consulting firms such as IMPULS, Rockwell
Automation, Capgemini, PwC, and Baker Tilly, Singapore
Smart Industry Readiness Index etc. The authors identified 13
maturity and/or readiness models that are suitable and have
the capability to investigate the status of Industry 4.0.
Table 1 shows the studies focussed on evaluating the matur-
ity or readiness in the context of Industry 4.0. The maturity
models which are not itemised in Table 1 have a scarcity of
information regarding the development procedure, structure
and assessment methodology which are invariably useful for
the reproduction of results.
A variety of tools have been developed recently to evalu-
ate Industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of an organisation.
The systematic approach suggested by Becker, Knackstedt,
and Po €ppelbuß (2009) and Kohlegger, Maier, and Thalmann
(2009) is comprehensively adapted for analysing the readi-
ness and/or maturity models. Based on the guidelines given
in the earlier studies a set of criteria such as ‘scope of
model’, ‘purpose’, ‘completeness’, ‘clarity of dimensions’ and
‘objective of the study’, ‘importance weights for maturity
items and dimensions’ are used to critically review the exist-
ing models. Accordingly each model is evaluated and conse-
quently, the contribution and limitation of the models are
recorded in Table 1.
It can be attributed from the above studies that the
maturity dimensions and assessment criteria for evaluating
Industry 4.0 readiness or maturity are completely dependent
on the perspective of the researchers (Bibby and Dehe 2018;
Pacchini et al. 2019) and their understanding of Industry 4.0
dimensions (Mittal et al. 2018). Further, most of the studies
 4

Table 1. Analysis of existing Industry 4.0 maturity models.

The focus of the model
No. of Practically
Maturity/readiness dimensions No. of tested Technology Governance People Value
assessment Research (sub- maturity Maturity /validated/ and and and chain and Industry 4.0 Contribution
model (source) context/area dimensions) items levels employed Organisation Infrastructure Cyber-security culture processes Awareness and limitations
Industry 4.0 Maturity Industry 4.0 9 62 1–5 Yes. 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
The model is an extension of existing
Model maturity models and focuses on discrete
(Schumacher, Erol, manufacturing firms
and Sihn 2016)
The structure of the model and
A. A. WAGIRE ET AL.

assessment process are clearly defined

Maturity items are empirically developed
and its importance weights are
determined through a short survey

Employed quantitative assessment for
evaluating readiness

The model is tested and validated
through a case study approach

Lack of details regarding maturity items
and inadequate information regarding
maturity levels
Maturity Model (Bibby Industry 4.0 3 (13) 23 1–4 Yes 冑 冑 冑 冑
The focus of the model is on ‘Factories
and Dehe 2018) of Future’ with eight key technologies
and the model is tested and validated in
the defence industry

The model structure and assessment
process are clearly defined however
items are not empirically developed

Employed quantitative assessment for
evaluating readiness with different range
of maturity levels

Importance levels of items and
dimensions are not considered

The model is inclined towards few
technologies and lacks the detailed
documentation about the model
development
IMPULS-Industrie 4.0 Industry 4.0 6 18 0–5 Yes 冑 冑 冑 冑
The model is empirically grounded and
Readiness offers details about the dimensions
(Lichtblau and items
et al. 2015)
Based on the readiness scores, the
evaluating firms are categorised into
three segments i.e. newcomers, learners
and leaders.

At the end of maturity assessment,
action items are elaborated along with
measures to handle barriers to
Industry 4.0

The model does not consider a few key
technologies such as AI, AR, VR, smart
glasses and Blockchain technology

The weights of each dimension is
decided but not for the items. The
weights are decided with the help of a
survey conducted in the firms
(continued)
Table 1. Continued.
The focus of the model
No. of Practically
Maturity/readiness dimensions No. of tested Technology Governance People Value
assessment Research (sub- maturity Maturity /validated/ and and and chain and Industry 4.0 Contribution
model (source) context/area dimensions) items levels employed Organisation Infrastructure Cyber-security culture processes Awareness and limitations
Industry 4.0: Building PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2016)
the digital
enterprise
(Geissbauer et al.
Digital Enterprise/ 7 33 1–4 Yes 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Online self-assessment tool developed to
Digital maturity measure the enterprises’ digital readiness

The model has categorised given
dimensions as essential and optional
dimensions while evaluating readiness.

The model captures the current state as
well as expected maturity state and
based on results, it guides companies
towards Industry 4.0 vision

The scientific documentation of the
model is missing

Importance levels of items and
dimensions are not considered
The Connected Connected 4 Missing 1–5 Not mentioned 冑 冑
The model focuses on the facets of
Enterprise Maturity Enterprise- existing IT/OT network and inadequately
Model (Rockwell IT readiness addresses the organisational and
Automation 2014) operations related dimensions

The model has insufficient details about
its structure and maturity items and
notably missing the scientific
documentation

Empirical development, validation and
testing of the model is not reported

Importance levels of items and
dimensions are not considered
SPICE-based Industry Industry 4.0- IT 5 Missing 0–5 No 冑 冑 冑 冑
SPICE based conceptual model proposed
4.0-MM (G€ okalp, to measure readiness for Industry 4.0
Şener, and
The readiness evaluation process is not
Eren 2017) explained in detail

The model lacks on account of scientific
and empirical-based development

No testing and validation of the model
in real-life application

Importance levels of items and
dimensions are not considered
Industry 4.0 maturity Industry 4.0 3 13 0–3 Yes 冑 冑 冑
The model is scientifically developed and
model (Akdil, based on Industry 4.0 principles and
Ustundag, and technologies
Cevikcan 2018)
The evaluation process is presented with
relevant assessment formulae and the
characteristics of maturity levels are
elaborated in detail

The model fails to provide empirical
validation of maturity items
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL

Importance levels of items and

dimensions are not considered
(continued)
5
 6

Table 1. Continued.
The focus of the model
No. of Practically
Maturity/readiness dimensions No. of tested Technology Governance People Value
assessment Research (sub- maturity Maturity /validated/ and and and chain and Industry 4.0 Contribution
model (source) context/area dimensions) items levels employed Organisation Infrastructure Cyber-security culture processes Awareness and limitations
An Industry 4 Industry 4.0 6 43 1–4 Yes 冑 冑 冑 冑
The model structure is elaborated along
readiness with details about sub-dimensions,
assessment tool however, it has fewer details regarding
(Agca et al. 2018) maturity assessment and identification of
A. A. WAGIRE ET AL.

maturity level

The model is not scientifically developed
and no empirical validation in a real-life
environment is done

Importance levels of items and
dimensions are not considered
Maturity Scoring Industry 4.0 6 missing 0–5 Yes 冑 冑 冑 冑
The model is developed to identify the
Model (Bittighofer readiness of companies from Germany
et al. 2018) and France and to develop a base to
compare its maturity levels

The model is missing crucial dimensions
like organisational awareness and
cybersecurity

Its reliability and validity has not
been checked

The details about the maturity
assessment process and readiness levels
are missing

Importance levels of items and
dimensions are not considered
Keskin et al. (2018) Industry 4.0 6 43 missing Yes 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
The model is developed in three stages
to identify readiness with help of MCDM
tools such as AHP and TOPSIS

The model offers flexibility to select the
relevant maturity dimensions and items
based on the specific industry
requirements

Importance weights of each selected
dimensions and criteria could be
calculated with the help of AHP

The model does not offer scientific
documentation and empirical validation
Industrie 4.0 Maturity Industry 4.0 4 missing 1–6 Yes 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
The model offers the Industry 4.0
Index (Schuh maturity index for companies in four
et al. 2018) different functional areas of a business

The detailed information regarding the
structure of the model is given but; the
quantitative assessment process
is missing

Importance levels of items and
dimensions are not considered
SIMMI 4.0 (Leyh IT 3 missing 5 No 冑 冑
The model consists of five stages to
et al. 2016) system assess the readiness of organisations for
landscape Industry 4.0 particularly IT
system landscape
(continued)
Table 1. Continued.
The focus of the model
No. of Practically
Maturity/readiness dimensions No. of tested Technology Governance People Value
assessment Research (sub- maturity Maturity /validated/ and and and chain and Industry 4.0 Contribution
model (source) context/area dimensions) items levels employed Organisation Infrastructure Cyber-security culture processes Awareness and limitations

Vertical integration, Horizontal
integration, Digital product development
and Cross-sectional technology criteria
are used to assess the maturity level

The model is missing in crucial
dimensions like organisational awareness
and cybersecurity

The scientific documentation of model
development is missing

The model is not empirical developed,
validated and tested

The details about the maturity
assessment and readiness level
are missing

Importance levels of items and
dimensions are not considered
Industry 4.0 readiness Industry 4.0 – 8 1–6 Yes 冑
The focus of the model is on evaluating
assessment model degree of readiness of organisations for
(Pacchini Industry 4.0 implementation with eight
et al. 2019) key technologies as enablers

The model is tested and validated in the
Brazilian auto-parts manufacturing
organisation

The degree of adoption of enabling
technologies is represented with help of
radar chart and reinforced the results
with help of a scale of colours

The model primarily focuses on
measuring degree of readiness of
organisation

Importance levels of items and
dimensions are not considered
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
7
8 A. A. WAGIRE ET AL.
(Rockwell Automation 2014; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2016;
Agca et al. 2018; Go €kalp, Şener, and Eren 2017; Akdil,
Ustundag, and Cevikcan 2018; Bibby and Dehe 2018;
Bittighofer et al. 2018; Pacchini et al. 2019) have not adopted
importance weights for dimensions and assessment criteria
whereas other maturity models (Lichtblau et al. 2015;
Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016; Keskin et al. 2018) have
considered different priority weights for dimensions and/or
maturity items while evaluating the maturity level. In add-
ition, there is no agreement across Industry 4.0 researchers
on the criteria which will successfully implement Industry 4.0
(Bibby and Dehe 2018; Pacchini et al. 2019).
While, the majority of models developed in the past have
their focus on evaluating the readiness and/or maturity of
organisations from the developed countries or organisations
that are more matured for Industry 4.0, the readiness and/or
maturity assessment from an emerging economy context
appears to have been dealt inadequately (Samaranayake,
Ramanathan, and Laosirihongthong 2017; Pacchini et al.
2019). Further, the cultural aspect which can be considered
as a collective mental programming of an organisation is not
adequately reflected in some models (Rockwell Automation
2014; Leyh et al. 2016; Agca et al. 2018; Go €kalp, Şener, and
Eren 2017; Akdil, Ustundag, and Cevikcan 2018; Pacchini
et al. 2019). However, few studies have partly included cul-
tural and geographical aspects which is limited to certain
behavioural aspect of culture (Lichtblau et al. 2015;
Geissbauer et al. PwC 2016; Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016;
Bibby and Dehe 2018; Bittighofer et al. 2018; Keskin et al.
2018; Schuh et al. 2018). There is little evidence concerning
the maturity models which are specifically designed for the
emerging nations. The major reason for dedicated maturity
model for emerging nations is that the base and starting
point for evaluating the Industry 4.0 readiness and maturity
would be entirely different since the industrialisation and
automation level of organisations from the developing
nations is much low as compared to developed economies
(Aulbur and Gangal 2017; Mehra et al. 2017; Kamakoti 2018).
It can also be attributed from existing literature that the
adoption of higher-end technologies in emerging nations is
more challenging as compared to their counter partners in
developed nations (Dalenogare et al. 2018). Since the emerg-
ing economies have been concentrating on extraction and
commercialisation of commodities, the level of industrialisa-
tion and adoption of technologies in these economies is low
and frequently lagging to developed economies. In other
words, the assimilation and acculturation to ongoing indus-
trial revolution is at slow pace in emerging economies than
economically developed countries. Moreover manufacturing
organisations, especially operating in emerging nations, have
serious issues in grasping the concepts of Industry 4.0 and
therefore lacks clear understanding about prerequisites and
maturation stages of Industry 4.0. Therefore model should
comprise of maturity items relevant to their capabilities and
have somewhat different layers of maturity for organisations
from emerging nations. Currently, the organisations from
developing nations are still confronting the challenge of
building the basic perquisites for Industry 4.0. Arguably, the
cultural differences and human resource factors (e.g. skills,
qualification, working population and demographic dividend)
play a significant role (World Economic forum 2018) in evalu-
ating the maturity. Hence while developing maturity models
one must think of the above-mentioned socio-economical
differences between already economically consolidated
nations and emerging nations due to the unique require-
ments and realities within developing worlds.
Despite the number of published Industry 4.0 readiness
assessment and maturity models, this topic seems yet to be
fully envisioned, addressed and empirically assessed from an
organisational awareness and technological perspectives.
Here, we see an opportunity to develop a user-friendly
framework comprising of the organisational awareness
aspect (e.g. usefulness, awareness about Industry 4.0 bene-
fits/implications) and emerging technologies (e.g. Cobots,
Augmented and Virtual reality (AR/VR), 3 D printing,
Manufacturing Execution System (MES), Blockchain
Technology (BT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), CS, RFID etc.) that
may have critical role in the successful realisation of Industry
4.0. The proposed framework could facilitate decision-makers
to understand the complex relationships among Industry 4.0
attributes and the current level of Industry 4.0 maturity.
Moreover, managers can easily understand the present
strengths and weaknesses of their companies compared to
competitors. The next section exemplifies the research frame-
work used for the development of the maturity model.
3. A research framework for the development of
the maturity model
For the development of the maturity model, the systematic
stepwise approach is appropriately developed based on the
guidelines suggested by Hevner et al. (2004) and Becker,
Knackstedt, and Po €ppelbuß (2009). These step-by-step guide-
lines to develop a maturity model have a strong theoretical
background from the design science research. Similar meth-
odology and approach have been utilised in the earlier stud-
ies (Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016) for the development
of maturity models. The research framework followed in our
study is as shown in Figure 1.
The research framework comprises a multi-methodological
approach to develop a maturity model including literature
review, comparison of existing maturity models, experts’
interview, modelling and conceptual design, testing and val-
idation of the model in real-life application. The research
framework has four distinct phases including understanding
about Industry 4.0 concept, core development phase - con-
ceptual modelling, digital assessment form, testing, valid-
ation, and the scientific documentation and implementation
in a real-life production environment. The process adopted
in the framework is an iterative process that helped in evalu-
ating, refining and enhancing the maturity model. The pro-
cess of development of the maturity model is divided into
four phases as explained below:

Figure 1. A research methodology for the development of the maturity model.
3.1. Building a thorough understanding of Industry 4.0
concepts and identifying the underlying problems
in its implementation
It is imperative for manufacturing organisations to know
about the abilities required to conquer the Industry 4.0
vision in a systematic way. At the current state Industry 4.0
concept is in the initial stages of its development, therefore,
there are no agreements or general consensus among the
researchers and practitioners about the aspects of Industry
4.0 (Akdil, Ustundag, and Cevikcan 2018; Bibby and Dehe
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 9
2018; Bittighofer et al. 2018; Pacchini et al. 2019). It is also
mentioned in the literature that the concept is not com-
pletely and clearly understood by the top management of
several companies (Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016; Go €kalp,
Şener, and Eren 2017). Therefore, it is imperative in our study
to precisely understand the domain complexities and thereby
clearly define the aspects of Industry 4.0 and its attributes.
For the first phase interviews with practitioners, research
scholars and consultants in the field of Industry 4.0 assisted
us to determine the underlying problems particularly related
to the developing country context.
10 A. A. WAGIRE ET AL.
3.1.1. Reviewing and comparing the existing matur-
ity models
The literature is thoroughly explored to collect various
maturity and readiness assessment models related to our
subject. Thereafter these identified models are completely
analysed, categorised and compared according to the pre-
decided assessment criteria and characteristics of models as
mentioned in section 2.2. The pros and cons of the models
are listed and the suitability of these models is evaluated for
our model, domain (manufacturing or service sectors) and
geographical context (particularly for developing nations).
The detailed review of these studies helped us to determine
the concepts relevant to build the model structure such as
assessment methods (qualitative or quantitative or mixed),
number of maturity levels (from level 1-lowest to 5-highest
maturity), dimensions (minimum 3 dimensions to maximum
of 16 dimensions) and assessment items (13–62 items), mode
of assessment (self-assessment or external) and presentation
style (generally numerical presentation and graphically repre-
sented through radar charts).
3.2. The core development phase of a maturity model
3.2.1. Development of model structure and maturity items
In this phase, the Maturity Model’s structure is developed
including dimensions and measurement items as well as the
levels of maturity along with its relevant characteristics. For
finalising and validating the maturity items, we referred to
the triangulation method; literature review of existing matur-
ity models, the consultation with the experts in the field of
manufacturing and digitalisation, and structured interview
sessions with the directors of the institutes working in the
field of Industry 4.0. The case study approach is also adopted
along with the above methods to recognise and confirm the
maturity items’ practicability for our study. An evaluation
form is designed wherein a short description of the measure-
ment item is given and attributes for each maturity items are
described. For this, the characteristics or attributes men-
tioned in the existing studies are examined in detail for its
appropriateness to our model. The recognised maturity items
at the end of this task are subsequently used for determining
the importance level of each item while evaluating the
maturing stage.
3.2.2. Determining the importance level of maturity items
and dimensions
During the interaction with practitioners and experts in the
field of Industry 4.0, it is revealed that every maturity item
has a different level of contribution or importance in the
maturing process of the organisation towards Industry 4.0.
The existing literature also supports this presumption that
every maturity item has different priority weights or signifi-
cance levels while assessing the maturity level (Lichtblau
et al. 2015; Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016; Keskin et al.
2018). For example, the ‘Blockchain technology’ adoption
may contribute differently to Industry 4.0 maturity than the
item ‘Smart Product - Intelligent sensors embedded into the
product’. Therefore, to identify the contribution of each
maturity item in determining the maturity level of the organ-
isation, the multi-criteria decision-making technique Fuzzy
Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is used. With the help of
experts’ opinions and decisions, pairwise comparison matri-
ces of the dimensions and items within each dimension are
prepared. This helped us to determine the importance of
weights of maturity dimensions and measurement items.
FAHP methodology steps are followed from earlier stud-
ies, details of which could be seen in various researches (Van
Laarhoven and Pedrycz 1983; Opricovic and Tzeng 2003;
Heo, Kim, and Boo 2010; Lin, 2010, 2013; Jakhar and
Barua 2014).
The broader steps of the FAHP method used to evaluate
priority weights are explained as below:
i. Define the problem i.e. calculating priority weights of
maturity items and dimensions.
ii. Create a hierarchy of goal i.e. hierarchy of maturity
dimensions and measurement items
iii. Data collection: To conduct a pairwise comparison of
maturity dimensions and measurement items, a group
of 15 professionals is formed. The selection criteria for
selection of experts are kept as a professional having
an experience in the field of Industry 4.0, digital trans-
formation, data sciences, industrial engineering,
advanced manufacturing, and competent in decision-
making. The profile of experts is as follows: eight
industry experts are selected from the manufacturing
industry out of which three experts are from the auto-
motive and auto-ancillary sectors, three are from
machine component manufacturing firm and one
expert from food and electronic industry sector each.
Further three experts from academia and two from
consultancy firms working in the field of advanced
technology, Industrial engineering, operations manage-
ment and strategic management. Two experts who par-
ticipated are Industry 4.0 solution providers. All the
industry experts have an experience of at least 15
years. The formal request was sent to each expert to
participate in this task and after their confirmation; a
pairwise comparison is completed during inter-
active sessions
iv. Create pairwise comparison matrices for each dimen-
sion and maturity measurement items within particular
dimension separately
v. Construct a fuzzy judgment matrix and perform fuzzy
synthetic extent calculations
vi. Examine consistency of pairwise comparison matrices
vii. Final step is to determine the priority weights of each
dimension and maturity item
3.2.3. Calculating the maturity score of dimension and
overall maturity score
Considering the fact that each maturity item has different
level of contribution in Industry 4.0 maturity measurement,
there is definite need to evaluate maturity of each dimension
along with overall maturity for an organisation. Therefore for

calculating the maturity of individual items and overall
maturity score (Mo) of the organisation, the following steps
are suitably developed:
The maturity model has ‘i’ maturity items in each ‘j’
maturity dimensions. The responses from ‘K’ respondents are
recorded separately for each ‘i’ maturity items of ‘j’ maturity
dimensions. Subsequently, based on these responses, the
maturity score for a particular maturity item is calculated by
taking the weighted average of ith measurement item of jth
maturity dimension as given in Equation (1).
XK
Maturity score for item ¼ ðDj Ii ÞAW ¼ W Rk
k¼1 k
(1)
where Rk is the Kth response; Wk is the weight of respondent
(for this study we assumed equal weights for all the respond-
ents); k ¼ 1, 2, … ., K. where ‘K’ is the total number of
respondents; Dj is the jth dimension; Ii is the ith maturity
item; ðDj Ii ÞAW is the weighted average for ith maturity item
of jth dimension.
The maturity score for each dimension is calculated with
the Equation (2) as given below,
X
n
Maturity score for dimension ¼ MDj ¼ Wi  ðDj Ii ÞAW
i¼1
where, Wi is the importance weight for ith measurement
item derived from the FAHP approach; MDj is the maturity
score for dimension ‘j’.
The overall maturity score (Mo) for the case organisation
is calculated with the Equation (3) as given below,
X
m
Overall Maturity score ¼ Mo ¼ Wj  MDj
j¼1
Where, Wj is the importance weight for jth maturity dimension
derived from the FAHP approach.
m ¼ number of dimensions (in our case, ‘m’ equals to
seven dimensions)
3.2.4. Development of maturity assessment tool
In order to simplify the calculations and evaluation of the
maturity levels for the case organisation, the questionnaire is
integrated into a spreadsheet developed in Microsoft Excel.
Based on the responses received from the case organisation,
individual responses can be fed into a specially designed
spreadsheet. Once the response sheet is filled, the calcula-
tions are automatically performed and maturity results are
numerically and graphically displayed on a dashboard. This
dashboard portrays the maturity scores for each dimension
and maturity items in both numeric and graphical form
(radar charts). This helps the company to interpret the
results distinctly.
3.3. Testing and implementation phase
The model is subsequently tested in the real-life environ-
ment and feedback from the experts is sought for its practic-
ability. Based on the response from the practitioners and
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 11
users of the maturity model, certain changes in the maturity
model are executed. The three iterations were performed to
finalise maturity items and dimensions and this iterative pro-
cess helped us to improve the quality, usability and validity
of the maturity model. This model is subsequently imple-
mented in the real-life situation and empirically tested in
various organisations.
4. The proposed Industry 4.0 maturity model
4.1. Structure of model
The proposed maturity model includes 38 maturity measure-
ment items spread across 7 Industry 4.0 dimensions. The
prime focus of our maturity model is on the emerging tech-
nologies as well as the critical aspects of organisations such
as strategies, people and culture, awareness about the con-
cept, usefulness and sensitivity for Industry 4.0 transform-
ation. The dimensions and details of maturity items are
enlisted in Table 2.
The measurement items included in each assessment
dimension are derived from the previous studies and
recognised with the help of experts in the domain. The next
(2) sub-section discusses the evaluation of maturity scores and
interpretation of maturity level of organisation and their
attributes to achieve Industry 4.0 vision.
4.2. Evaluating the maturity scores of dimensions and
overall maturity score
The organisational maturity is calculated through structured
(3)
closed-ended questions for each maturity item separately as
listed in Table 2. The five-point Likert scale, ‘1’ for ‘No or low
level of maturity’ while ‘5’ represents ‘high level of maturity
for Industry 4.0 vision’ is adopted to record the responses for
each maturity item in the questionnaire. For example, as
shown in Table 3, the maturity item ‘the company’s digital
vision and roadmap for Industry 4.0 adoption and implemen-
tation’ for the dimension ‘organisational strategy’.
In Table 3, rating ‘1’ represents ‘no digital vision and road-
map is developed by organisation for Industry 4.0 and/or
Industry 4.0 is not part of business strategy’; rating ‘2’ shows
‘organisation is developing digital vision for Industry 4.0 but
roadmap is not prepared and/or Industry 4.0 is not inte-
grated into business strategy but it is recognised at depart-
ment level only’; rating ‘3’ represents ‘vision for Industry 4.0
is developed and currently preparing a roadmap for pilot
projects and/or Industry 4.0 is part of business strategy’; the
rating ‘40 signifies ‘vision for Industry 4.0 is developed and
company is preparing roadmap for its complete implementa-
tion and/or Industry 4.0 strategy is communicated across
organisation and widely understood’ and lastly rating ‘5’
characterises ‘Industry 4.0 is part of organisational strategy
and accordingly progressing towards Industry 4.0 as per
developed vision and roadmap’.
Likewise, attributes for each maturity items have been
listed and are used while seeking responses from respondents
on each maturity item. Because of space constraints, all of
12 A. A. WAGIRE ET AL.
Table 2. Structure of the maturity model and importance weight for dimensions and items.
Industry 4.0 dimension
(FAHP weights)
People and culture (0.12)
Industry 4.0 awareness (0.06)
Organisational strategy (0.18)
Value chain and
processes (0.17)
Smart manufacturing
technology (0.13)
Assessment criteria/
measurement item
Leadership Support
Continuous Improvement Culture
Dedicated teams
Digital skills and qualification
Familiarity with Industry 4.0
Sensitivity towards the impact of
digital transformation
Usefulness of Industry 4.0
to company
Preparedness for Industry
4.0 adoption
Digital vision and roadmap
Customer integration
Collaboration
Zero Paper Strategy
Financial Investment
Digitalisation of Vertical value chain
Real-time monitoring and control
End-to-End IT-enabled planning and
steering process
Digitalisation of
production equipments
Digitalisation of Horizontal
value chain
Autonomous and Collaborative
robots (Cobots)
Software Systems like ERP, MES, CRM
and PLM tools
Identifiers like Bar code, QR code or
RFID and RTLS
Intelligent sensors, actuators,
embedded systems and PLCs
Machine to Machine (M2M) and
Human to Machine (H2M)
communication
Digital platforms (DP) for supplier
integration
Digital platforms (DP) for customer
integration
AR, VR and MR
Item
weights
(FAHP
Description for measurement item weights)
The leadership support towards digital transformation activities 0.38
The company’s continuous improvement culture to adopt 0.12
Industry 4.0
The existence of dedicated teams in the company to drive 0.17
digitalisation across the organisation
The company’s alignment towards employees’ digital skills 0.33
and qualifications to adopt Industry 4.0
The Company’s familiarity with the term ‘Industry 4.0’ 0.35
The sensitivity of the company towards the impact of digital 0.22
transformation through Industry 4.0
The perception regarding the usefulness of Industry 4.0 to 0.17
company’s performance
The perception regarding the company’s preparedness for the 0.26
introduction of new technologies of Industry 4.0
The company’s digital vision and roadmap for Industry 4.0 0.28
The company’s ability to integrate customers’ need and/or 0.15
preferences in the product development and
production processes
The company’s collaboration efforts with external 0.12
organisations (e.g. with Industry 4.0 solution providers,
consultants, suppliers and academia) to embrace
Industry 4.0
The company’s ability to control, display and exchange 0.19
information/data without paper i.e. ‘Zero paper Strategy
The company’s level of investments for transformation to 0.26
Industry 4.0
The degree of digitalisation of the product development 0.26
phase to the production phase
The company’s ability to monitor the production in real-time 0.14
and dynamically react to the changes in demand
The company’s level of an end-to-end IT enabled planning 0.19
and steering process from sales forecasting, production to
warehouse planning and logistics
The company’s level of digitalisation of production 0.15
equipments (sensors, IoT connection, digital monitoring,
control, optimisation and automation)
The degree of digitalisation of your value chain from 0.26
customer order to supplier, production and logistics
to service
The company uses advanced robots for automating activities 0.12
(such as handling, welding and painting) and AGVs for
logistics. These systems work autonomously and are
consciously aware of the surroundings that make them
work collaboratively with the human.
The organisation uses digital software systems for sharing 0.15
information and obtains real-time feedback from the shop
floor and other functional areas of the organisation to
support in decision making at machine control level,
production control level and corporate management level.
The company uses identifiers for the asset (e.g. product, parts, 0.12
equipments or people) tracking and locating it in various
areas of the company such as manufacturing plants,
warehouse and maintenance.
The company employs intelligent sensors, actuators and PLCs 0.15
on machines and equipments to facilitate digitalisation of
manufacturing processes.
The company has a communication system with 0.19
interoperability to exchange the information through the
networked machines at the shop floor and human at
different hierarchical levels.
The company provides digital platforms to exchange real-time 0.15
information about manufacturing schedules, operation
activities and inventory levels with other manufacturing
units, suppliers and warehouses.
The digital platforms provided to the customers to know the 0.12
manufacturing status of their product, tracking product
delivery and attending specific customer demands.
0.22
(continued)

Table 2. Continued.
Industry 4.0 dimension Assessment criteria/
(FAHP weights) measurement item
Product and services oriented
technology (0.15)
Additive Manufacturing (AM), 3D
Printing (3DP)
Mobile Devices and Wearables
Blockchain Technology (BT)
Smart Product
Industry 4.0 base Cloud Computing (CC) network for
technology (0.18) resource sharing
Cloud Computing (CC) network for
data storing
Internet of Things (IoT)
Internet of services (IoS)
Big Data (BD), real-time
data processing
Simulation tools
Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine
Learning (ML) and Deep
Learning (DL)
Industrial Cyber Security (CS)
ERP: Enterprise resource planning; MES: Manufacturing Execution System; CRM: Customer relationship management; PLM: Product lifecycle management; QR
Code: Quick Response Code; RTLS: Real-time Location System; PLCs: Programmable logic controllers; DP: Digital platforms; AR: Augmented Reality; VR: Virtual
Reality; MR: Mixed Reality AM: Additive Manufacturing; 3DP: 3 D Printing; BT: Blockchain Technology; CC: Cloud Computing; IoT: Internet of Things; IoS: Internet
of Services; BD: Big Data; AI: Artificial Intelligence; ML: Machine Learning; DL: Deep Learning; CS: Industrial Cyber Security, AGVs: Automated Guided Vehicles.
the attributes for each maturity items have not been men-
tioned here. Broadly the rating 1 symbolises if company has
no exposure to any Industry 4.0 aspects or minimal plans or
implementation activities for Industry 4.0 realisation. Whereas,
scale rating 5 describes whether company has successfully
adopted the particular aspect of Industry 4.0 completely.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 13
Item
weights
(FAHP
Description for measurement item weights)
The company uses technological devices for ‘design process
enhancement by visualising issues in product development
life cycle’; ‘productivity improvement by providing smart
glasses to the workers that assist them to improve
turnaround time in supply chain and
manufacturing processes’.
The company employs 3DP technique at various stages of 0.21
production i.e. from product conceptualisation -
manufacturing to after-sales. For example: in the design
phase of the new product, rapid prototyping, R & D and
for after-sales spare parts supply.
The company uses mobile devices (e.g. smartphones, tablets) 0.19
and Wearables (e.g. smartwatches, glasses and gloves) to
access the information and to communicate with several
systems on a real-time basis.
The company uses BT for effective and efficient e-value 0.10
chains. For example, 1) transparent supply chain involving
of tracking and tracing parts from supplier to their origin;
tracking purchase orders and enhancing procurement data
accuracy. 2) Smart contracts that include automatically
verifying orders; product delivery and invoices
from suppliers.
The company develops smart products by embedding 0.28
intelligent sensors into the products that enable products
to sense the environment around them.
The company uses cloud systems for remotely connecting and 0.11
sharing hard resources (e.g. equipments and robots) and
soft resources (e.g. data, documents and software)
The company stores and retrieves the information from the 0.12
cloud network.
The company has communication technologies like Wi-Fi, 0.17
ZigBee, and Bluetooth etc. for wireless communication and
networking between the machines, robots, systems and
people. The company has the capability to connect the
physical things with the internet and enabling them to be
as smart things.
The company provides services via web-based technologies, 0.15
allowing the company and other users to combine, create
and offer new kind of value-added services.
The company has the capability to collect, store and manage 0.15
the BD (structured and unstructured) effectively which is
captured from physical objects and external elements to
improve plant productivity and to minimise downtime
through predictive analytics.
The obtained data then used to simulate what-if scenario 0.09
considering several affecting parameters to build futuristic
scenarios for business decision support.
The company makes use of AI-based cognitive technologies 0.10
like Natural language processing, Speech recognition, Rule-
based systems and Computer vision for ‘higher
personalisation of products and services’ and ‘improving
the efficiency of production and business processes’.
The company has adopted various security measures like 0.11
encryption, authentication and authorisation measures that
help to establish secured communication protocols to
ensure IT security and data protection, as a threat may
arise due to connected ecosystem.
The maturity scores for each measurement item, dimen-
sion and overall maturity of company is evaluated using
Equations (1)–(3) respectively as explained in section 3.2.3 of
this work. These calculated scores are subsequently used to
determine maturity level of organisation for Industry 4.0,
which is discussed in next sub-section.
14 A. A. WAGIRE ET AL.
Table 3. Representative question to measure a maturity item.
Sample question
How do you rate your company’s digital vision and roadmap for Industry 4.0 adoption and implementation?
Table 4. Industry 4.0 maturity level.
Maturity score (Mo) range Maturity level
4.00  Mo  5.00 Level 4: Expert
3.00  Mo < 4.00 Level 3: Experienced
High
2.00  Mo < 3.00 Level 2: Digital Novice
1.00  Mo < 2.00 Level 1: Outsider
Level of
Maturity
Low
4.3. Industry 4.0 maturity levels
Based on the obtained overall maturity score, Industry 4.0 matur-
ity level of organisation is determined from the below men-
tioned Table 4. The organisation under research can be classified
into one of the four maturity levels. The level 1 represents matur-
ity ‘Outsider’ whereas level 4 signifies ‘Expert’ maturity state.
Maturity Level 1 can be described as the ‘Outsider’ for those
companies which scored between 1 and 2. These companies
have no exposure to any Industry 4.0 aspects or minimal plans
or implementation activities for Industry 4.0 realisation. While
highest maturity Level 4 describes the ‘Expert’ maturity for
those companies which scored between 4 and 5. These com-
panies have successfully adopted all the aspects of Industry
4.0 and have the intense application of emerging technolo-
gies. The other maturity levels between level 1 and level 4 are
denoted as follows: level 2 designates the company as ‘Digital
Novice’ and level 3 represents as ‘Experienced’ maturity state.
During the evaluation process, due care is taken to ensure
that the responses to each question should be genuine and
exemplifies the factual state of the organisation for Industry
4.0. For that respondents are well-briefed regarding the basic
concepts of Industry 4.0 and maturity model before under-
taking the Industry 4.0 evaluation process. The maturity
model is tested and validated in five case organisations from
different manufacturing sectors such as automotive, auto-
ancillary, food and beverages and electrical and electronic
equipment manufacturing companies to verify its structure
and suitability to the domain as well as investigating its prac-
tical usability for the organisations. Owing to space con-
straint the results of one case-study from auto-component
manufacturing sector are presented in the next section.
We choose to present particular case in this paper because
the automotive sector in India is at the cusp of technological
innovations like electrification, connectivity and autonomy. The
sector has significant contribution (approx. 7.5%) to India’s
Gross Domestic Product and is expected to reach Rs 16.16–18.18
trillion (US$251.4  282.8 billion) by 2026 (IBEF, 2019).
5. Case study in XYZ Ltd
The maturity model proposed in this study is employed to
assess Industry 4.0 maturity level of a case organisation,
Response on 5-point likert scale
‹ › fi fl 
which is a leading supplier of technology products and serv-
ices in the area of mobility solutions, consumer goods, and
building technology. XYZ (name of the company is disguised
as desired by the company) is operational in India for the
last 95 years. In the mobility solution business, the company
thrived as a global leading automotive component supplier
in the year 2018 with a revenue of around 47.6 billion euros.
The company’s automotive component manufacturing busi-
ness contributes around 85% of its overall business in India.
It has a stronghold on the Indian automotive market with a
market share of about 70%. The XYZ company is located in
east-central part of Rajasthan, India. It has more than 1000
employees including contractual employees.
Three plant visits and semi-structured interview sessions
were conducted from April 2019 to July 2019 to understand
the current status of the company regarding Industry 4.0.
From shop floor visits and interview sessions with top man-
agement employees it is revealed that XYZ has implemented
a number of digital transformation-related pilot projects and
committed for driving Industry 4.0 strategy. While moving
from the mechanical world to a connected world through
Industry 4.0 and the IoT, the company is driving necessary
changes in a few critical functions and processes of the busi-
ness. It can be corroborated from the fact that XYZ company
has invested around 1.1 million euros over last 3 years on
Industry 4.0 related projects.
Thirteen experts were requested to participate in the
Industry 4.0 maturity assessment. Due care is taken to ensure
the accuracy of the results through developing basic under-
standing and knowledge among respondents about the pro-
posed Industry 4.0 maturity model and its assessment
criteria. The selection of experts is based on the criteria that
each selected expert should have at least 10 years of experi-
ence in the manufacturing functions. In addition, an expert
should have strong capability to analyse the company’s man-
ufacturing processes with respect to Industry 4.0 and have a
fair knowledge about the organisation’s strategy for digital-
isation. Experts were selected from various value streams of
the plant including Industry 4.0 coordinators, plant head,
team leaders, managers, and senior managers. They were
selected based on their ability to assess the Industry 4.0
activities across the organisation as well as activities in rela-
tion to technical functions, supply chain and in-plant logis-
tics, quality and maintenance, operations and
human resource.
As explained in section 3.2.4, the evaluation scores of
each expert are recorded in the spreadsheet. The scores are
recorded against each questionnaire item mentioned in
Table 2. Based on the scores given by the experts, the overall
maturity score and maturity level related to specific readiness
dimensions and the overall maturity level of the organisation
are calculated. The collection of the data and evaluation of
maturity allowed us to benchmark the Industry 4.0 practices
against each dimension.

Industry 4.0 Base
Technology
Product and Services
oriented Technology
Smart Manufacturing
Technology
Overall Maturity Score (2.88)
Figure 2. Industry 4.0 maturity scores in seven dimensions.
5.1. Maturity assessment results and discussion
The assessment results for the case organisation are com-
pleted for all seven dimensions and the maturity score for
the main dimensions are depicted in the radar chart as
shown in Figure 2.
The assessment study shows that ‘Product and Services ori-
ented Technology’ (2.4) dimension has the lowest maturity
score while the dimensions ‘Industry 4.0 awareness’ (3.7),
‘People and culture’ (3.5) and ‘Smart Manufacturing
Technology’ (3.2) have a moderately high score among the
others. The study reveals that maturity scores vary from 2.4 to
3.7. The overall maturity score is 2.88 which means that the
case company resides in ‘Digital Novice’ maturity level. It can
be also revealed from the maturity score that the company is
very near to obtain the next maturity level ‘Experienced’. This
assessment can be corroborated because the case company
has adopted several aspects of Industry 4.0 but at isolated pla-
ces in the organisation. The organisation claims that they are
improving in the productivity and other benefits related to
operations through Industry 4.0 pilot projects. However, there
is still a wide scope for the company to horizontally integrate
with customers to enhance product customisation or personal-
isation as well as horizontally connect with business partners
to enable real-time production visibility.
Further, the assessment study exposes a comparatively
higher maturity points for ‘Industry 4.0 awareness’ dimension
(3.7). This is likely for the case company because of its cur-
rent efforts and significant investment for building a new
facility ‘Industry 4.0 academy’ for conducting awareness
drives regarding Industry 4.0. The facility is being used for
educating managerial level employees about Industry 4.0
practices and emerging technologies. Next, the company has
adopted quite a few manufacturing systems related technol-
ogies such as intelligent sensors, actuators, PLCs, RFID, barco-
des, MES and ERP systems; the reason why the case
company shows relatively high score in ‘Smart
Manufacturing Technology’ (3.2) dimension. In the year 2018
the company has invested around 128,000 euros on VR/AR,
3 D printing technology and Energy management projects.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 15
People and Culture
5
3.5
4 Industry 4.0
3.7 Awareness
3
2.5
2
1
2.4 2.8 Organisaonal
Strategy
2.7
3.2
Value Chain and
process
Dimensionwise Maturity Score
Figure 2 shows that the maturity level for ‘Product and
Services oriented Technology’ dimension is low (2.4) among
all the dimensions. This may be due to the reason that the
company has limited adoption of product and services
related technologies such as 3D printing, Blockchain and AR/
VR for producing customised products and offering the prod-
uct-oriented services. Take an example of 3D printing tech-
nology which is presently employed in the manufacturing
toolings and prototypes instead of the actual manufacturing
of products. Likewise, the company utilises VR technology to
train the employees in quality-related aspects only.
Next, the assessments for maturity items within dimen-
sions are calculated with the help of eq. (1) and the results
are depicted in Figure 3. Among all the assessment items,
‘usefulness of Industry 4.0 for business’ item exhibits a higher
maturity score of 4.8. It is observed that the higher author-
ities of plant and middle-level management are highly aware
regarding benefits associated with Industry 4.0 technologies,
its implications to operations, productivity and overall busi-
ness growth. The maturity item ‘familiarity with Industry 4.0’
shows a maturity score of 3.5. The probable reason for the
high maturity score is that the case company considers
themselves as one of the early adopters of Industry 4.0 as
they have started the first pilot project in the year 2015.
Therefore over the period of time, the familiarity regarding
Industry 4.0 is developed across the organisation.
The case company has adopted several smart manufactur-
ing technologies in its plant and at the business operation
level. For example, the radar chart Figure 3 shows that the
highest maturity score (4.3) is for the ‘Intelligent sensors,
actuators, PLCs for manufacturing processes’ dimension. The
high maturity for this dimension is owing to the fact that the
case company has employed numerous sensors, actuators
and PLCs on its machines and equipments to facilitate auto-
mation of manufacturing processes. However, the case com-
pany fails to establish the full machine-to-machine
communication (2.8) due to the technological and organisa-
tional barriers such as old machines, hardware and software
incompatible with latest IT systems. Another important chal-
lenge for the company is that the new compatibility platform
16 A. A. WAGIRE ET AL.
Figure 3. Industry 4.0 maturity score for all maturity items of dimensions.
involves higher financial investment for enabling real-time
communication. This reflects that despite encouraging efforts
at the organisational level; the case plant’s ‘preparedness for
Industry 4.0’ (2.8) is very less which is almost equals to over-
all maturity score (2.88). One of the main reasons for the low
preparedness of the company is its legacy hardware,
machines and equipments. Therefore, the company is finding
it very difficult to integrate and communicate with the latest
IT systems.
The assessment work also depicts that, ‘AI, ML and DL’ (1.6),
‘IoT’ (2.4), ‘IoS’ (1.5) and ‘Simulation tools’ (2.2) maturity items
show comparatively very low maturity score. The reason
behind low maturity may be that the case company has lim-
ited capability to collect, store, monitor and control the real-
time data from production units. However, the case company
is significantly using a cloud network for storing the data and
sharing the cloud-based applications for internal users as well
as external customers. The case company has cloud systems
for remotely connecting and sharing the soft resources (e.g.
data, documents and software) but no cloud connectivity for
the hard resources (e.g. equipments and robots).
5.2. Learning from the maturity model and
maturity assessment
The outcome of maturity level assessment leads to critical
learnings regarding aspects on which company needs to
focus on improvements. The current assessment shows that
the case company is in ‘Digital Novice’ maturity level and it
has a better chance to move to the next maturity level
‘Experienced’. The maturity evaluation reveals that the case
organisation strength resides in its ERP, MES, Sensors and
PLCs. However, its integration with each other is significantly
missing which prevents the company from collecting real-
time data from various stages of production and resources.
Next RFID, Bar code, Cloud Computing are recognised as
relatively highly used technologies whereas Smart Product,
IoT and IoS and Big data analytics are identified as areas for
improvements. There is a prospect for the case company to
improve upon ‘Smart Manufacturing Technology’ dimension.
For instance, the case company has currently deployed RFID
tags and barcode systems for ordering and tracking of goods
in the limited places of the assembly areas and in the

supermarket areas. This could be scaled up to other areas of
value streams where RFID implementation can be deployed
at all relevant assembly lines and the supermarket areas for
reaping the full benefits out of these technologies. Likewise,
the case company may target the crucial areas or technolo-
gies where they scored low maturity such as Cobots, Big
Data, vertical and horizontal integration.
6. Conclusion, limitations and future scope
This section expounds on the research contribution, its impli-
cations for academics and practitioners and the limitation of
the model guiding towards future research scope.
6.1. Research contribution
This study contributes to the literature in the domain of
Industry 4.0 by proposing a maturity assessment framework
in the form of a model to help companies to assess their
maturity to Industry 4.0. The assessment framework comprises
of 7 dimensions and 38 maturity items which are identified
from the extant literature and recognised through experts’
opinion. An evaluation form is designed systematically to
seek the responses from the respondents against each matur-
ity item. The questionnaire is designed in such a way that the
respondents can self-assess the company’s maturing stage.
This study proposes different weights for each dimension
and maturity items comprised in the assessment framework.
For instance, the maturity dimension ‘People and Culture’ or
‘Industry 4.0 awareness’ might have different importance lev-
els in the assessment process than ‘Industry 4.0 base tech-
nology’ dimension of the maturity model. FAHP technique is
adopted to determine the priority weights of dimensions
and measurement items. The experts’ judgment and their
opinion are used to finalise its importance level. Based on
the evaluation score and priority weights, the maturity score
for each maturity item and dimension is calculated and sub-
sequently depicted using radar charts. Based on the maturity
scores the level of maturity is determined and its related
characteristics can be referred to decide the company’s over-
all maturing stage.
6.2. Theoretical and practical implications
The output of this study reveals several theoretical and prac-
tical implications. In terms of theoretical implication, this
study has conducted a systematic analysis of existing matur-
ity models. A systematic and scientific methodology is
adopted to develop a maturity model and it is validated in
consultation with users of the maturity model. The proposed
maturity model explicitly fills the research gap of Industry 4.0
assessment tool and maturity level measurement from critical
insights of a developing country. Hence the study adds value
in providing a maturity assessment tool specifically for
organisations from developing countries. Though this frame-
work is designed and tested in Indian manufacturing organi-
sations, it would be beneficial to industrial companies
beyond India. The proposed maturity model serves as an
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 17
important reference point and possibly it is a new domain
for future studies regarding replicating or refining the model.
This study brings up multiple, self-adjusting, unpredictable
and interacting pathways operated in the manufacturing pro-
cess that are extracted from the macro to micro-level journey
towards Industry 4.0.
Next, the model is tested in an auto-component manufac-
turing company having a strong market share in India as well
as in the world. A structured questionnaire is used to collect
the responses from experts from the case company who are
selected on the basis of explicit selection criteria. The study
concludes, based on the results of the Industry 4.0 maturity
assessment, that the case organisation resides in the ‘Digital
Novice’ level of maturity with overall maturity score (2.88)
against the maximum maturity score (5).
Based on the assessment study, the company can develop
a strategy for the adoption of digital emerging technologies.
The company needs to demystify technologies and resist
using it for the sake of using the latest and the greatest. The
proposed assessment framework enables companies to self-
assess their maturing stage for Industry 4.0. Further, it helps
in deciding the assessment criterion on which the company
needs to focus on enhancing the readiness and maturity
level. This evaluation process supports the company in priori-
tising its areas of improvement and maturing towards
Industry 4.0. The top management can utilise the assessment
results for allocating financial budgets, resources and to set
targets for development. Additionally, it is also recom-
mended that the organisation can make use of the results
for sharing the best practices and knowledge with its supply
chain network companies. The outcome of the study offers
organisations the practical guidelines for developing a robust
Industry 4.0 adoption strategy that is in line with their busi-
ness strategy. Based on the maturity results an indigenous
and tailored roadmap to digital transformation can be devel-
oped. For managers, it is a valuable instrument that allows
the assessment of the ‘as-it-is’ state of an organisation and
helps them to rationalise improvement actions. Finally lever-
aging the assessment results will pave the way for an inclu-
sive and comprehensive approach to the deployment of
Industry 4.0.
6.3. Limitations and future research scope
Although the developed model is supported by prior litera-
ture, expert consultation and case study, the experts’ judg-
ment and opinion involved in this process still contain a
certain level of subjectivity. Therefore the proposed model
needs to be tested for its applicability with the aim to gener-
alise in other industrial organisations and manufacturing sec-
tors such as textile, pharmaceutical and cement industry. To
enhance confidence of users towards this model, the maturity
items comprised in the assessment model should be devel-
oped empirically with more use cases. The present study
assumes that the maturity measurement items comprised in
the model are critical and a response to each item is needed
for calculating the maturity level where Not-Applicable
answers are not allowed. Further efforts may be directed to
18 A. A. WAGIRE ET AL.
measure the degree of readiness of organisation for Industry
4.0 as suggested by Pacchini et al. (2019), which is based on
the assessment of prerequisites adopted by organisation, for
each maturity items mentioned in this study.
Next, the identified importance weights of each maturity
item are based on opinion received from comparatively a
limited number of experts. In future a large scale survey may
be conducted to recognise the importance level of maturity
items for the organisations of different industries. Further
small changes in the existing model will facilitate its users to
decide importance level (weights) of maturity items and
dimensions based on their company’s strategy. Additionally,
more maturity items related to legal and regulatory issues
could be introduced in the existing model. The model could
further be embedded with the activity plans based on the
assessment results from the case organisation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Aniruddha Anil Wagire is a lecturer in Automobile
Engineering at Government Polytechnic, Awasari
khurd, Maharashtra and Research Scholar at Malaviya
National Institute of Technology Jaipur. He has
earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Automobile
Engineering and Master’s Degree in Mechanical
Engineering (Design) from the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Rajarambapu Institute of
Technology, Rajaramnagar, Shivaji University,
Maharashtra, India. His areas of research interests include Industry 4.0,
smart manufacturing, Latent semantic analysis, Advance manufacturing
technologies. He is a member of ISTE.
Rohit Joshi is an Associate Professor in IIM Shillong,
India. He is a Fulbright Fellow and has done his
Postdoctoral research from the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA) USA. He has done his
Ph.D. from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.
His consulting and teaching interests include
Operations and Supply Chain Management, Quality
Management, Food Supply Chain Management,
Business Statistics, Quantitative techniques, Value-
engineering, Creative problem solving, and Information technology,
Java-based web technologies, and system modelling.
Ajay Pal Singh Rathore is a professor in Department
in Mechanical Engineering, Malaviya National
Institute of Technology Jaipur, India. His research
areas include supply chain management, lean manu-
facturing, new product development, operations
management, benchmarking and total quality man-
agement. He has authored over 80 research articles
in these areas. He is a member of ISTE and IIIE.
Rakesh Jain is a professor in Mechanical Engineering
Department at Malaviya National Institute of
Technology Jaipur, India. His research areas include,
supply chain management, lean manufacturing, new
product development, strategic management and
total quality management. He has authored over 45
research articles in these areas. He is a life member
of ISTE. He is member of IIIE and chairman of Jaipur
chapter of IIIE.
References
Agca, O., J. Gibson, J. Godsell, J. Ignatius, J. Wyn Davies, and O. Xu 2018.
An Industry 4 readiness assessment tool. WMG International Institute
for Product and Service Innovation University of Warwick (2017).
Agrifoglio, R., C. Cannavale, E. Laurenza, and C. Metallo. 2017. “How
Emerging Digital Technologies Affect Operations Management
through co-Creation. Empirical Evidence from the Maritime Industry.”
Production Planning & Control 28 (16): 1298–1306. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2017.1375150.
Akdil, K. Y., A. Ustundag, and E. Cevikcan. 2018. “Maturity and Readiness
Model for Industry 4.0 Strategy.” In Industry 4.0: Managing the Digital
Transformation, 61–94. Cham: Springer.
Aulbur, W., and R. Gangal. 2017. “Industry 4.0 and India’s automotive
industry– Theme Paper”, Roland Berger Report in 2nd ASSOCHAM
automotive Forum and Awards. Accessed 15 January 2018. https://
www.assocham.org/upload/event/recent/event1434/Assocham-Auto-
Forum-and-Awards-2017-min.pdf
Backlund, F., D. Chron eer, and E. Sundqvist. 2014. “Project Management
Maturity Models–A Critical Review: A Case Study within Swedish
Engineering and Construction Organizations.” Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences 119: 837–846.
Basl, J. 2018. “Analysis of Industry 4.0 Readiness Indexes and Maturity
Models and Proposal of the Dimension for Enterprise Information
Systems.” In International Conference on Research and Practical Issues
of Enterprise Information Systems, 57–68. Cham: Springer.
Becker, J., R. Knackstedt, and J. Po €ppelbuß. 2009. “Developing Maturity
Models for IT Management.” Business & Information Systems
Engineering 1 (3): 213–222. doi:10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5.
Bibby, L., and B. Dehe. 2018. “Defining and Assessing Industry 4.0
Maturity Levels–Case of the Defence Sector.” Production Planning &
Control 29 (12): 1030–1043.
Bittighofer, D., M. Dust, A. Irslinger, M. Liebich, and L. Martin. 2018.
“State of Industry 4.0 across German Companies.” In 2018 IEEE
International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation
(ICE/ITMC), 1–8. Stuttgart, Germany: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICE.2018.
8436246.
Dalenogare, L. S., G. B. Benitez, N. F. Ayala, and A. G. Frank. 2018. The
expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial per-
formance. International Journal of Production Economics, 204:
383–394.
Fatorachian, H., and H. Kazemi. 2018. “A Critical Investigation of Industry
4.0 in Manufacturing: theoretical Operationalisation Framework.”
Production Planning & Control 29 (8): 633–644. doi:10.1080/09537287.
2018.1424960.
Ghobakhloo, M. 2018. “The Future of Manufacturing Industry: A Strategic
Roadmap toward Industry 4.0.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 29 (6): 910–936. doi:10.1108/JMTM-02-2018-0057.
Go€kalp, E., U. Şener, and P. E. Eren. 2017. “Development of an
Assessment Model for Industry 4.0: Industry 4.0-MM.” In International
Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability
Determination, 128–142. Cham: Springer.
Go€lzer, P., and A. Fritzsche. 2017. “Data-Driven Operations Management:
organisational Implications of the Digital Transformation in Industrial
Practice.” Production Planning & Control 28 (16): 1332–1343.
Helo, P., and Y. Hao. 2017. “Cloud Manufacturing System for Sheet Metal
Processing.” Production Planning & Control 28 (6–8): 524–537. doi:10.
1080/09537287.2017.1309714.

Heo, E., J. Kim, and K. J. Boo. 2010. “Analysis of the Assessment Factors
for Renewable Energy Dissemination Program Evaluation Using Fuzzy
AHP.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (8): 2214–2220.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.01.020.
Hermann, M., T. Pentek, and B. Otto. 2016. “Design Principles for
Industrie 4.0 Scenarios.” 49th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, USA: IEEE, 3928–3937.
Hevner, A. R., S. T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram. 2004. “Design Science in
Information Systems Research.” MIS Quarterly 28 (1): 75–105. doi:10.
2307/25148625.
Hofmann, E., and M. R€ usch. 2017. “Industry 4.0 and the Current Status as
Well as Future Prospects on Logistics.” Computers in Industry 89:
23–34. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2017.04.002.
India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) Report. 2019. Indian Automobile
Industry Report, November, 2019. https://www.ibef.org/download/
Automobiles-November-2019.pdf
Jakhar, S. K., and M. K. Barua. 2014. “An Integrated Model of Supply
Chain Performance Evaluation and Decision-Making Using Structural
Equation Modelling and Fuzzy AHP.” Production Planning & Control
25 (11): 938–957.
Kagermann, H., J. Helbig, A. Hellinger, and W. Wahlster. 2013.
Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE
4.0: Securing the Future of German Manufacturing industry; Final Report
of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Frankfurt, Germany:
Forschungsunion.
Kamakoti, V. 2018. “The Report of Task Force on Artificial Intelligence.”
Accessed 04 June 2018. http://dipp.nic.in/whats-new/report-task-
force-artificial-intelligence
Kamble, S., A. Gunasekaran, and N. C. Dhone. 2019. “Industry 4.0 and
Lean Manufacturing Practices for Sustainable Organisational
Performance in Indian Manufacturing Companies.” International Journal
of Production Research 58 (5) : 1–19. doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.
1630772.
Kamble, S. S., A. Gunasekaran, and S. A. Gawankar. 2018. “Sustainable
Industry 4.0 Framework: A Systematic Literature Review Identifying
the Current Trends and Future Perspectives.” Process Safety and
Environmental Protection 117: 408–425.
Kamble, S. S., A. Gunasekaran, and R. Sharma. 2018. “Analysis of the
Driving and Dependence Power of Barriers to Adopt Industry 4.0 in
Indian Manufacturing Industry.” Computers in Industry 101: 107–119.
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2018.06.004.
Keskin, F. D., _I. Kabasakal, Y. Kaymaz, and H. Soyuer. 2018. “An
Assessment Model for Organizational Adoption of Industry 4.0 Based
on Multi-Criteria Decision Techniques.” In The International Symposium
for Production Research, 85–100. Cham: Springer.
Kohlegger, M., R. Maier, and S. Thalmann. 2009. Understanding Maturity
Models. Results of a Structured Content Analysis. Graz, Austria. 51–61.
na.
Leyh, C., Bley, K., Sch€affer, T., and Forstenh€ausler, S. (2016, September).
SIMMI 4.0-a maturity model for classifying the enterprise-wide it and
software landscape focusing on Industry 4.0. In 2016 federated confer-
ence on computer science and information systems (fedcsis),
1297–1302. IEEE.
Liao, Y., F. Deschamps, E. D. F. R. Loures, and L. F. P. Ramos. 2017. “Past,
Present and Future of Industry 4.0 – a Systematic Literature Review
and Research Agenda Proposal.” International Journal of Production
Research 55 (12) : 3609–3629. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576.
Lichtblau, K., V. Stich, R. Bertenrath, M. Blum, M. Bleider, A. Millack, K.
Schmitt, E. Schmitz, and M. Schro €ter. 2015. IMPULS-Industrie 4.0-
Readiness. Aachen-Ko €ln: Impuls-Stiftung des VDMA.
Lin, H. F. 2010. “An Application of Fuzzy AHP for Evaluating Course
Website Quality.” Computers & Education 54 (4): 877–888. doi:10.1016/
j.compedu.2009.09.017.
Lin, H. F. 2013. “Determining the Relative Importance of Mobile Banking
Quality Factors.” Computer Standards & Interfaces 35 (2): 195–204. doi:
10.1016/j.csi.2012.07.003.
Lucato, W. C., A. P. T. Pacchini, F. Facchini, and G. Mummolo. 2019.
“Model to Evaluate the Industry 4.0 Readiness Degree in Industrial
Companies.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 52 (13): 1808–1813. doi:10.1016/j.ifa-
col.2019.11.464.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 19
Luthra, S., and S. K. Mangla. 2018. “Evaluating Challenges to Industry 4.0
Initiatives for Supply Chain Sustainability in Emerging Economies.”
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 117: 168–179. doi:10.
1016/j.psep.2018.04.018.
Mehra, S., S. Chouhan, P. Mehra, and A. Dasot. 2017. “India’s Readiness
for Industry 4.0 – A Focus on Automotive Sector.” Accessed 15
January 2018. http://www.grantthornton.in/insights/articles/indias-
readiness-for-industry-4.0–a-focus-on-automotive-sector.
Mittal, S., M. A. Khan, D. Romero, and T. Wuest. 2018. “A Critical Review
of Smart Manufacturing & Industry 4.0 Maturity Models: Implications
for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs).” Journal of
Manufacturing Systems 49: 194–214.
Ngai, E. W. T., D. C. K. Chau, J. K. L. Poon, and C. K. M. To. 2013. “Energy
and Utility Management Maturity Model for Sustainable Manufacturing
Process.” International Journal of Production Economics 146 (2): 453–464.
Nikkhou, S., K. Taghizadeh, and S. Hajiyakhchali. 2016. “Designing a
Portfolio Management Maturity Model (Elena).” Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences 226: 318–325.
Oesterreich, T. D., and F. Teuteberg. 2016. “Understanding the
Implications of Digitisation and Automation in the Context of
Industry 4.0: A Triangulation Approach and Elements of a Research
Agenda for the Construction Industry.” Computers in Industry 83:
121–139. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2016.09.006.
Opricovic, S., and G. H. Tzeng. 2003. “Defuzzification Within a
Multicriteria Decision Model.” International Journal of Uncertainty,
Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 11 (5): 635–652. doi:10.1142/
S0218488503002387.
Oxford Dictionaries: Readiness j Definition of readiness in English by
Oxford Dictionaries. Accessed 25 July 2018. https://en.oxforddiction-
aries.com/definition/readiness
Pacchini, A. P. T., W. C. Lucato, F. Facchini, and G. Mummolo. 2019. “The
Degree of Readiness for the Implementation of Industry 4.0.”
Computers in Industry 113: 103125.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2016. “The Industry 4.0/Digital Operations Self
Assessment.” Accessed 13 August 2019. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/
industries/industries-4.0/landing-page/industry-4.0-building-your-
digital-enterprise-april-2016.pdf
Proença, D., and J. Borbinha. 2016. “Maturity Models for Information
Systems-A State of the Art.” Procedia Computer Science 100:
1042–1049. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.279.
Rockwell Automation. 2014. “The Connected Enterprise Maturity Model.”
Rockwell Automation 12: 1–12.
Samaranayake, P., K. Ramanathan, and T. Laosirihongthong. 2017.
“Implementing Industry 4.0—A Technological Readiness Perspective.”
In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management (IEEM), 529–533. Singapore: IEEE. doi:10.
1109/IEEM.2017.8289947.
Schroeder, A., A. Ziaee Bigdeli, C. Galera Zarcos, and T. Baines. 2019.
“Capturing the Benefits of Industry 4.0: A Business Network
Perspective.” Production Planning & Control 30 (16): 1–17.
Schuh, G., R. Anderl, J. Gausemeier, M. Ten Hompel, and W. Wahlster.
2018. Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index. Managing the Digital Transformation
of Companies. Acatech Study. Munich: Germany.
Schumacher, A., S. Erol, and W. Sihn. 2016. “A Maturity Model for
Assessing Industry 4.0 Readiness and Maturity of Manufacturing
Enterprises.” Procedia CIRP 52: 161–166. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.040.
Sharma, P. 2017. Kranti Nation: India and Fourth Industrial Revolution.
New Delhi, India: Macmillan.
Simpson, J. A., E. S. C. Weiner, and Oxford University Press, Eds., 1989.
The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clar-endon Press; New
York: Oxford University Press.
Tarhan, A., O. Turetken, and H. A. Reijers. 2016. “Business Process
Maturity Models: A Systematic Literature Review.” Information and
Software Technology 75: 122–134.
Van Laarhoven, P. J., and W. Pedrycz. 1983. “A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty’s
Priority Theory.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11 (1–3): 229–241.
Vivares, J. A., W. Sarache, and J. E. Hurtado. 2018. “A Maturity
Assessment Model for Manufacturing Systems.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 29 (5): 746–767.
20 A. A. WAGIRE ET AL.

Voß, F. L., and Pawlowski, J. M. 2019. Digital Readiness Frameworks. In World Economic forum. 2018. “The Readiness for the Future of Production
International Conference on Knowledge Management in Report 2018.” Accessed 12 February 2018. https://www.weforum.org/
Organizations. 503. Springer Cham reports/readiness-for-the-future-of-production-report-2018.
Wagire, A. A., A. P. S. Rathore, and R. Jain. 2019. “Analysis and Synthesis Zhou, K., T. Liu, and L. Zhou. 2015. “Industry 4.0: Towards Future
of Industry 4.0 Research Landscape: Using Latent Semantic Analysis Industrial Opportunities and Challenges.” In 2015 12th International
Approach.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 31 (1): Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD),
31–51. doi:10.1108/JMTM-10-2018-0349. 2147–2152. Zhangjiajie, China: IEEE.