The Ability of Project Managers To Implement Industry 4.0-Related Projects

Benchmarking: an International Journal
Be
nc
hm
Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0: Findings from a
Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda
ar
Journal: Benchmarking: an International Journal
Manuscript ID BIJ-04-2020-0158.R2
kin
Manuscript Type: Original Article
Industry 4.0, Learning, Manufacturing Industry, Technology,

Keywords:
Organisational Learning
g:
an
Int
er
na
tio
na
lJ
ou
rn
al
Page 1 of 33 Benchmarking: an International Journal
1
2
3
4
5
Organisational Learning and
Industry 4.0: Findings from a
Be
6
7
8
9
Systematic Literature Review and
nc
10
11
Research Agenda
12
hm
13
Abstract
14
15 Purpose – Industry 4.0 has been one of the most topic of interest by researches and practitioners
16 in recent years. Then, researches which bring new insights related to the subjects linked to the
Industry 4.0 become relevant to support Industry 4.0’s initiatives as well as for the deployment
ark
17
18 of new research works. Considering “Organisational Learning” as one of the most crucial
19 subjects in this new context, this article aims to identify dimensions present in the literature
20 regarding the relation between Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0 seeking to clarify how
21
ing
22
learning can be understood into the context of the fourth industrial revolution. In addition,
23 future research directions are presented as well.
24 Design, methodology/ approach – This study is based on a systematic literature review (SLR)
25 that covers Industry 4.0 and Organisational Learning based on publications made from 2012,
:a
26 when the topic of Industry 4.0 was coined in Germany, using as data basis Web of Science and
27 Google Scholar. Also, Nvivo software was used in order to identify keywords and the
28
nI
respective dimensions and constructs found out on this research.

29
30 Findings – Nine dimensions were identified between Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0.
31 These include Management, Industry 4.0, General Industry, Technology, Sustainability,
nt
32 Application, Interaction between Industry and the Academia, Education and Training, and
33 Competency and Skills. These dimensions may be viewed in three main constructs which are
34 essentially in order to understand and manage Learning in Industry 4.0’s programs. They are:
ern
35 Learning Development, Industry 4.0 Structure and Technology Adoption.

36
Research limitations/Implications – Even though there are relatively few publications that have
37
38 studied the relationship between Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0, this article makes
a material contribution to both the theory in relation to Industry 4.0 and the theory of learning
ati
39
40 - for its unprecedented nature, introducing the dimensions comprising this relation as well as
41 possible future research directions encouraging empirical researches.
42 Practical implications – This article identifies the thematic dimensions relative to Industry 4.0
on
43 and Organisational Learning. The understanding of this relation has a relevant contribution to
44
45
professionals acting in the field of Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0 in the sense of
affording an adequate deployment of these elements by organisations.
al
46
47 Originality/value – This article is unique for filling a gap in the academic literature in terms of
48 understanding the relation between Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0. The article also
Jo
49 provides future research directions on learning within the context of Industry 4.0.
50 Keywords: Industry 4.0, Learning, Manufacturing Industry, Technology, Organisational
51
Learning.
ur
52
53
54 Paper Type – Literature Review
na
55
56
57
58
l
59
60
Benchmarking: an International Journal Page 2 of 33
1
2
3 1. Introduction
4
5
Be
6 Industry 4.0 is a "strategic initiative" of the German government adopted as part of the 2020
7
8 High Technology Strategy Action Plan in November 2011 (Ardito et al., 2019), even though,
9
nc
10 since 2006, the purpose has been to promote the effective integration of Industry 4.0,
11 encompassing aspects such as Internet of Things, Cloud Computing, Big Data Analysis; Cyber
12
hm
13 Security; profiles of internal and external clients in organizations (Lu, 2017).
14
15
16
It should be taken into account that, since 2006, the German government had been seeking
ark
17
18 a high technology strategy targeted at the coordination of interdepartmental research and
19
20 innovation initiatives, with the objective of guaranteeing a strong competitive position for
21
ing
22 Germany through technological innovation (Yang et al., 2018). Among the characteristics of
23
companies in the Fourth Industrial Revolution is the fact that they are intelligent, connected
24
25 and act in strategic areas.
:a
26
27
28
nI
29 The focus of Industry 4.0 is on technological products, more agile procedures and
30 processes, in complex environments and subject to disruption and deflection. One of its
31
nt
32 objectives is to connect human beings, machines and equipment in a large communication

33
34 network, targeting mobility, flexibility and the establishment of intelligent networks,
ern
35
36
promoting vertical and horizontal integration (Kagermann et al., 2013; Bauer et al., 2018).
37 According to Bienhaus and Haddud (2018), the digitalization process may bring a number of
38
benefits, including: support for daily administration and business tasks, support for complex
ati
39
40
41 decision-making processes, acquisitions will become more focused on strategic decisions and
42
on
activities. This scenario of Industry 4.0 is changing the way of learning in organizations and in
43
44 the academia (Schuh et al., 2015; Simons et al., 2017).
45
al
46
47
48 Significant researches have been developed on the context of Industry 4.0 such as
Jo
49 Sustainability (Kamble, Gunasekaran and Gawankar, 2018; Jabbour et al., 2018), Lean
50
51 Manufacturing (Sanders, Elangeswaran and Wulfsberg, 2016; Mrugalska and Wyrwicka,
ur
52
53 2017), Product Development (Santos et al., 2017), Small and Medium Enterprises - SMEs in
54
Industry 4.0 (Moeuf, 2017), Production Planning and Control (Dolgui, et al., 2018), Strategic
na
55
56 Management ( Lin et al., 2018), Performance Measurement (Frederico, et al.,2020),
57
58 Organisational Structure (Wilkesmann and Wildesmann, 2018), Servitization ( Frank et.al.,
l
59
60
1
2
3 2019) and Supply Chain and Industry 4.0 (Frederico et al., 2019; Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018
4
5 and Kache and Seuring, 2017).
Be
6
7
8
9
Also research efforts related to the main disruptive technologies of Industry 4.0 have been
nc
10 undertaken giving significant theoretical and practical contributions such as on Big Data
11
12 Analytics (Queiroz and Telles, 2018; Wamba et al. 2015; Gunasekaran et al., 2017; Hazen et
hm
13
14 al., 2016) and Internet of Things – IoT (Gunasekaran, Subramanian and Tiwari, 2016; Misrha
15
et al.,2016; Ben-Daya, Hassini and Baroun, 2017).
16
ark
17
18
19 On the sense of the subject of this article, individual and Organisational learning within the
20
21 context of Industry 4.0 is a mandatory aspect in managing complex industrial processes, in
ing
22 which different tasks are carried out by different partners in separate geographic spaces, both
23
24 intra and inter organizations. According to Ardito et al. (2019), Industry 4.0 has had positive
25
:a
26 reflexes in the deployment of Information Technology (IT). Currently, approximately 90% of

27
28
all manufacturing processes already have some form of IT support. Organizations have
nI
29 experimented a number of different ways of disseminating information, with the new

30
31 technologies associated to the principles of Industry 4.0, which are capable of promoting data
nt
32
33 and information integration and interoperability among different companies in decision-
34
making (Chen et al., 2008; Aydin, 2018).
ern
35
36
37
38 For Al-Kurdi et al. (2018), Organisational culture is fundamental in promoting knowledge
ati
39
40 and information sharing, with Industry 4.0 focusing on creating intelligent products, procedures
41 and processes that enable managing complexity with a lower trend to interruptions,
42
on
43 manufacturing goods more efficiently. In intelligent plants, humans, machines and resources
44
45 communicate with each other with the same naturality as in social media (Ardito et al., 2019;
al
46
Tvenge and Martinsen, 2018). In order to survive in such a complex environment, companies
47
48 must be extremely agile and build high levels of capability in resilience and risk mitigation and
Jo
49
50 structural flexibility enabling a quick response to these challenges (Ben-Dayaa et al., 2017;
51
Soomro et al., 2019).
ur
52
53
54
na
55 Based on this scenario, authors like Wagner et al. (2012), Hummel et al. (2015), Yang et
56
57 al. (2018), emphasize that concepts related to intelligent factories have been gaining more
58
l
59
relevance due to the Industry 4.0, concepts connected to the so-called Learning Factories
60
1
2
3 determined by digital technologies, such as the Internet of Things, Big Data and Artificial
4
5 Intelligence.
Be
6
7
8
9
Industry 4.0’s continual professional qualification and development is, currently, one of the
nc
10 priority action areas (Enke et al., 2015). The outcome of the implementation of Industry 4.0
11
12 should be a social-technical plant driven to work and the working system (Kagermann et al.,
hm
13
14 2013). Nonetheless, Organisational learning is an issue that should be approached in its full
15
complexity, implying in innovations in academic training and in the ongoing professional
16
ark
17 development, above all in the areas of engineering, caused by the changes in employment
18
19 profiles and the competencies in the world of work. Thus, the idea of learning is far broader
20
21 than just training, given it involves the lifelong development of competencies and learning
ing
22 (Schein, 1996; McHugh et al., 1998; Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Hancock and Tyler, 2008;
23
24 Kagermann et al., 2013; Steinbuß et al., 2017; Simper et al., 2018). Yet, Organisational
25
:a
26 Learning has a positive mediation between the Industry 4.0’s initiatives and Operational
27
28
Performance (Tortorella et al., 2020).
nI
29
30
31 Also, Organisational learning may be supplemented by a cultural dimension, comprised of
nt
32
33 Organisational values or postures (Schein, 1996). In organizations, this may be an ideology of
34
support for a management Organisational development agenda, often decentralized and in post-
ern
35
36 bureaucratic formats, that explore their workers and transform students into self-disciplining
37
38 collaborators (McHugh et al., 1998; Hancock and Tyler, 2008). For McHugh et al. (1998) the
ati
39
40 learning process in organizations leads individuals to acquiring knowledge, values, behaviors
41 and skills by way of being taught and studying. For Baker and Sinkula (1999), in its turn, the
42
on
43 drive to learning affects directly the capacity to challenge statements or old “truths” about the
44
45 Market and how companies should be organized to deal with them.
al
46
47
48 Thus, given the previously set out context, this research targets answering the following
Jo
49
50 question:
51
ur
52
53 How Organisational Learning can be understood in the context of Industry 4.0?
54
na
55
56
57 This article aims to understand how the Organisational learning can be viewed in the
58
l
59
context of Industry 4.0, showing the dimensions from this understanding which supports on
60
1
2
3 the management of learning in Industry 4.0 initiatives as well as on the deployment of future
4
5 research directions.
Be
6
7
8
9
Some researches related to this subject has already been published, such as future research
nc
10 in management, production management, and industrial organizations (Nosalska et al., 2019),
11
12 process design principles, providing guidelines for the design and management of Industrie 4.0
hm
13
14 compliant processes (Hermann et al., 2019), the success factor, failure factor, business model,
15
potential and difficulties in the context of Industry 4.0 (Rejikumar et al., (2019), an integrative
16
ark
17 system of value creation that is comprised of 12 design principles and 14 technology trends
18
19 (Ghobakhloo, 2018), a research agenda where a common terminology should be created and
20
21 the consequences of human resources should be analyzed (Erro-Garcés, 2019), six broad
ing
22 themes of readiness factors (Sony and Naik, 2019), to propose a taxonomy of Industry 4.0
23
24 research landscape (Wagire et al., 2019), but without mentioning the initiative of academic
25
:a
26 learning in the context of Industry 4.0.

27
28
nI
29 However, this paper seeks to give a more holistic view, which is a significant gap, from the
30
31 compilation of the literature available, building a consolidated knowledge related to Learning
nt
32
33 in Industry 4.0.
34
ern
35
36 Therefore, the article is structured as follows: I) Introduction with approach of Industry 4.0
37
38 and Organisational Learning as shown above. II) Systematic Literature Review with the due
ati
39
40 data collection and analysis. III) Discussion of findings from the literature review. IV)
41 Conclusion and possible future research directions based on the dimensions identified in this
42
on
43 study.
44
45
2. Systematic Literature Review
al
46
47
48 This review of the literature is a scientific and transparent process that can be replicated,
Jo
49
50 i.e., the technique outlined, that has the intent of minimizing learning risks and difficulties. As
51
mentioned by Tranfield et al. (2003), the review of the literature may be the most important
ur
52
53 part of any research project. Researchers map and evaluate important problem issues to be
54
na
55 studied that then lead to developing the questions that further contribute to enhancing the
56
57 science of knowledge. Through past research, current reality may be improved and prepared
58
l
59
for a near future (Webster and Watson, 2002). Using the gaps found through literature reviews
60 serves as source of insights and direction for the permanent benefit of operating needs of those
1
2
3 who would use the study as a strategy model to be followed as a guide in the organizations that
4
5 learn.
Be
6
7
8
9
Through exhaustive bibliography search of studies published previously, or as yet
nc
10 unpublished, researchers are able to define paths to be followed (Tranfield et al., 2003). The
11
12 method applied in this study followed the one proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003) based on
hm
13
14 three stages: (I) planning the review, (II) performing the review, (III) reporting and disclosing
15
results. As starting point, publications on the topic of “Industry 4.0” or “Industrie 4.0” and
16
ark
17 “learning” on the Web of Science and on Google Scholar, between 2012 and 2019, were
18
19 identified. This period was chosen considering that the interest by Industry 4.0 by for both
20
21 practitioners and academics started from 2012, after the concept has been presented in the
ing
22 Hannover Fair in 2011 in Germany.

23
24
25
:a
26 Liao et al. (2017) mention the fact that, for a systematic literature review to be viable, the
27
28
concepts must be explicitly stated. According to Aydin (2018), the focus of Industry 4.0 lies in
nI
29 technological products, more agile procedures and processes, in a complex environment subject
30
31 to disruption and deflection. One of its objectives is to connect humans, machines and
nt
32
33 equipment, in short, the different resources in a large communication network, targeting
34
mobility, flexibility and the establishment of intelligent networks, with vertical and horizontal
ern
35
36 integration (Al-Kurdi et al., 2018). However, learning by everyone becomes fundamental for
37
38 this connection to take place.
ati
39
40
41 Therefore, this paper’s main contribution is to introduce the dimensions in the relation
42
on
43 between Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0, which provides the view in how learning
44
45 should be understood into this fourth industrial revolution context. Nonetheless, another
al
46
important contribution of this paper is to provide future research directions on this relation,
47
48 contributing to future researches related to this topic, from the compilation presents in this
Jo
49
50 literature review.
51
ur
52
53 Table 1 shows the stages of the article search process for those that comprise the corpus
54
na
55 under analysis
56
57
58
l
59
.
60 [Table 1 – Insert here]
1
2
3
4
5
2.1 Data collection and analysis
Be
6
7
8 The analysis period covered in this study went from 2012 to 2019, when the term Industry
9
nc
10
4.0 gained interests by researchers and practitioners after it has been launched on the Hannover
11 fair in 2011.
12
hm
13
14
15 On the search, 50 documents were found in the Web of Science and Google Scholar
16 database with the words “learning” and “industry 4.0” or “industrie 4.0” and published within
ark
17
18 the time period set out in Table 2. There is a higher concentration of publications in 2017
19
20 (32%), followed by 2015 and 2017 (30%). No publications were found in 2013 and 2014.
21
ing
22
24
25
:a
26 The study also evidenced that conferences on Learning Factories in 2015, 2017 and 2018
27 displayed the highest frequencies of publications, respectively. This is explained by the fact
28
nI
29 that the interest by this research topic started from 2012 and researches, generally are first
30
31 communicated in refereed conferences. Table 3 shows the distribution of documents by events
nt
32
33
or journals. The authors opted for conferences to identify the research agenda, which can
34 generate more robust scientific articles in the future. This scope is one of the limitations of this
ern
35
36 research, although it presents relevant questions for researchers in the coming years.
37
38
ati

40
41
42
on
In this study, the NVivo software was used in performing the systematic review of the target
43
44 literature in terms of keyword analysis. In the keyword analysis in the 50 documents, 126
45
unique keywords were found in the articles (Appendix I), showing a dispersion concerning the
al
46
47
48 topics approached in these articles.
Jo
49
50
3. Findings from Literature Review
51
ur
52
53 In this section, the main findings in the contents of the documents analyzed in this literature
54
na
55 review will be shown. The most frequent words on the articles were identified based on Nvivo
56
57 software. They were grouped into similar categories, that is, they are related with the same
58
l
59
subject by their genre. The 21 keywords most evidenced in the analyzed articles are displayed
60 below, with frequency in parentheses: Learning Factory (23), Industry 4.0 (20), Industrie 4.0
1
2
3 (7), Learning Factories (7), Cyber-Physical Systems (4), Digitalization (4), Energy Efficiency
4
5 (4), Logistics (3), Manufacturing Education (3), Manufacturing Engineering (3), Training (3),
Be
6
7 Competence Development (2), Cyber-Physical Production Systems (2), Digital Transformation
8
9
(2), Education (2), E-Learning (2), Lean Management (2), Lean Manufacturing (2), Production
nc
10 Planning And Control (2), Project-Based Learning (2), Engineering Education (2 ).
11
12
hm
13
14 After analyzing the content of these 50 articles, these 126 keywords indicated by the authors
15
of the articles (APPENDIX I) were grouped by similar ideas. The dimensions presented in the
16
ark
17 subject Learning in Industry 4.0 were identified in content analysis.

18
19
20
21 Figure 1 introduces the nine dimensions created by the authors, based on the grouping of
ing
22 keywords with similarity, to wit: Management, Industry 4.0, General Industry, Technology,
23
24 Sustainability, Application, Interaction between Industry and Academia, Education and
25
:a
26 Training, and Competency and Skills. The tables 4, 5 and 6 present these keywords, as well as
27
28
their content.
nI
29
30
31 Figure 1 presents the number of articles which considered each dimension, taking into
nt
32
33 consideration that that an article can have multiple keywords. These dimensions represent the
34
elements that were considered by the set of authors who has studied about Learning in Industry
ern
35
36 4.0. These dimensions provide a holistic view regarding how learning can be viewed in order
37
38 to support Industry 4.0’s initiatives, which will be presented below.
ati
39
40
41
42
on
43
44
45
al
46
47
48
Jo
49
50
51
ur
52
53
54
na
55
56
57
58
l
59
60
1
2
3 Figure 1 - Dimensions between Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0 formed by the keywords indicated by
4
5 the authors in their articles extracted from literature review
Be
6
7
8 Interaction between Industry and Academia 33
9
nc
10 Education and Training 24
11
12 Competency and Skills 14
hm
13
14 Technology 17
15
16 Sustainability 7
ark
17
18 Application 13
19
20 Management 22
21
ing
Industry 4.0 30
22
23
General Industry 24
24
25
:a
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
26
27
28
nI
29
30 On the sequence, some ideas found in the analysis categories comprising the constructs
31 under study will be introduced. The first one (Industry 4.0 Structure) concerns aspects in
nt
32
33 connection with the enhancement of industrial and general administration. The second one
34
ern
35 (Technology Adoption) deals with aspects linked to technology and its applications, as well
36
37
as aspects involving increased efficiency and reduced energy consumption. The third
38 (Learning Development) is about the interaction between university and industry, the
ati
39
40 strategies in education and training for students and professionals, as well as the development
41
42 of competencies and skills within the context of Industry 4.0.
on
43
44
45 These nine dimensions (Figure 1) were grouped in three main constructs according to
al
46
47 Figure 2. They are related through the rationale that education and training for both, practicing
48
professional and students, in developing competencies and skills, must provide support for the
Jo
49
50 application of new technologies given the increase in efficiency seen in the Industry 4.0
51
ur
52 initiatives.
53
54
na
55
56
57
58
l
59
60
1
2
3 Figure 2 – Constructs between Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0
4
5
Be
6
7
8
9
nc
10
11
12
hm
13
14
15
16
ark
17
18
19
20
21
ing
22
23
24
25 3.1 Industry 4.0 Structure
:a
26
27
28 The first dimension states that management techniques must be enhanced in Industry 4.0
nI
29
30 and in industry at large. The man-machine interfaces remain typical of Industry 3.0 both in the
31
automation process, and in the digitizing process and in autonomous systems of Industry 4.0.
nt
32
33 According to the stated in Table 4, in each analysis category keywords appointed by the authors
34
ern
35 in the documents have been grouped.

36
37
ati
39
40
41
42 Several types of application for Industry 4.0 have been introduced since 2011, when
on
43 Hannover Messe took place, according to Wank et al. (2016). The main focus of learning in
44
45 Industry 4.0 is digitizing, followed by the following challenges: horizontal integration,
al
46
47 deployment of digital engineering among partners, vertical integration, establishment of new
48
social infrastructures and implantation of cyber-physical production systems (Schallock et al.,
Jo
49
50 2018). Industry 4.0 presupposes the existence of management practices such as the Lean
51
ur
52 philosophy, employee participation in decision making, knowledge exchange among the staff,
53
54 among others.
na
55
56
57 The objective of learning in Industry 4.0 is the creation of fairly realistic simulation plant
58
l
59 environments, above all in Learning Factory environments. Cachay et al. (2012) approached
60
1
2
3 learning by engineering students in these environments and identified that, despite the
4
5 principles of the Bologna Agreement in Europe, study at university level still remains very
Be
6
7 abstract and scientific in developing competencies for acting on the work market, i.e., there are
8
9
shortcomings in the integration among the technical, process and conceptual knowledge types.
nc
10
11
12 For Wagner et al. (2015), the Learning Factory is the appropriate venue for studies on the
hm
13
14 efficient use of resources. In addition, this initiative concentrates in several fields such as lean
15
management, quality management, logistics, capacity for change in production, resilience,
16
ark
17 strategic leadership among others, always with the objective of sharing specialized knowledge
18
19 (Uhlemann et al., 2017).
20
21
ing
22 3.2 Technology Adoption

23
24 The second dimension pools keywords dealing with technologies, such as the Internet of
25
:a
26 Things and digitizing, the deployment of these technologies in industry with the objective of
27
28
increasing energy efficiency, for instance. According to Table 5, one of the new markers of the
nI
29 new industry will be the use of 3D printers, cyber-physical systems, mass digitizing, in addition
30
31 to the use RFId and Raspberry Pi.
nt
32
33
ern
35
36
37
38 Learning of practical applications in Industry 4.0 is encouraged using techniques like
ati
39
40 machine learning, debriefing, digital twin, scale modelling, for professionals and students.
41 Focused on technology, Industry 4.0 also requires product and service knowledge such as 3D
42
on
43 printing, RFID, Augmented reality, Internet of Things, Cyber-physical systems, assistance

44
45 systems, Raspberry Pi, with the intent of promoting integration among automated systems
al
46
47 (Elbestawi et al., 2018).
48
Jo
49
50 The concept of Lear instrument was introduced by Muschard and Seliger (2015) through
51
the CubeFactory equipment, in which users can operate them intuitively and practically, with
ur
52
53
a view to expanding their knowledge independently. This solar powered equipment integrates
54
na
55 a 3D printer and a recycler for producing filaments. This 1m3-equipment, suitable for sites with
56
57 infrastructure shortcomings, features some environmental advantages such as reduction of
58
l
59 waste, low consumption, low CO2 emissions, production in environments close to consumption,
60
1
2
3 in addition to flexibility in customizing production. The CubeFactory was developed under the
4
5 people-centered design concept, enabling deployment in precarious infrastructure sites, in
Be
6
7 additional to allowing operation by people with little prior knowledge.
8
9
nc
10 In its turn, learning focused on cost optimization and reduction was approached Schallock
11
12 et al. (2018). According to the authors, in addition to operational training, it is necessary to
hm
13
14 focus on broader topics, such as management, coaching and effective monitoring of work after
15
training. Their studies approach the learning factory, developed mainly in Europe in the last
16
ark
17 ten years and that integrates observation, theory and practice in qualifying engineering students
18
19 and professionals. In studies of energy efficiency in industry, Büth et al. (2018) introduced
20
21 some analysis methods, such as: load curve analysis, load duration curve analysis, machine
ing
22 lists, pareto analysis, Sankey diagrams, energy portfolio, energy value stream analysis and
23
24 energy break down analysis.
25
:a
26
27
28
Starting from cyber-physical systems, a partial reversion of Taylorism (Reverse Taylor)
nI
29 will be possible, affirm Bauernansl et al. (2018), for the following characteristics: manufacture
30
31 supported by planning and execution standards, co-design process between manufacturer and
nt
32
33 customer, fluid areas of competency for professionals that change over time and be supported
34
by cyber-physical systems (CPS). The authors affirm that cyber-physical systems (CPS) are
ern
35
36 capable of helping in competency development, and this requires new models of learning,
37
38 including through the use of distance education and learning based on shopfloor practices.
ati
39
40
41 In energy intensive production industries, developing competencies for reduction of energy
42
on
43 consumption may become a competitive advantage, according to Kaluza et al. (2015). Thus,
44
45 the study of energy efficiency can be an important element to be addressed in learning at the
al
46
factory, because all forms of energy must be included in studies in connection with their
47
48 economic and ecological impacts, in processes like machining, mechatronics, robotics or
Jo
49
50 assembly (Kaluza et al., 2015).
51
ur
52
53 Studies on decision-making for energy efficiency between management levels (top-floor
54
na
55 and shop-floor) were undertaken by Faller and Fedmüller (2015). The following are among the
56
57 objectives reported in the study: optimization strategies analyzed using performance indicators
58
l
59
(KPI); energy metering equipment functionalities and configuration; energy monitoring
60 software are handled by students; efficient manufacturing means are demonstrated; in addition,
1
2
3 people learn to put in place energy efficiency devices in their companies.
4
5
Be
6
7 Digitizing has the power of increasing efficiency in Industry 4.0, affirm Büth et al. (2018),
8
9
above all if human beings take on the central role in planning manufacture processes. The
nc
10 authors investigated whether digitizing has a positive effect on the operation of energy
11
12 transparency and demand visibility tools.
hm
13
14
15
Thus, qualification and training for professionals in evaluating these tools becomes
16
ark
17 necessary, given the existence of an economic cap for the degree of energy transparency, after
18
19 which the efforts required to implement acquisition, operating and maintenance costs outweigh
20
21 the potential benefits, according to Büth et al. (2018). Energy efficiency optimization and lean
ing
22 management are among the most commonly approached topics in plants, affirms Rentzos et al.
23
24 (2015).
25
:a
26
27
28
Plorin et al. (2015)’s article introduced two examples of application of advanced learning
nI
29 factory: energy efficiency in manufacture and global production management. The capacity for
30
31 quick response to changes is one of the interlinked systems in Industry 4.0. In learning factories,
nt
32
33 individual staff efficiency, process improvement and efficient use of resources for the purpose
34
of delivering targets, reducing manufacturing costs, in addition to increasing output quality and
ern
35
36 speed (Wank et al., 2016).
37
38
ati
39
40 The active use of assistance systems, within the context of cyber-physical systems, was
41 approached by Prinz et al. (2017), with a view to increasing efficiency and reducing waste.
42
on
43 Assistance systems are one of the solution areas present in Industry 4.0, together with
44
45 centralization, service driven, autonomy, data acquisition and processing, networking and
al
46
integration (Prinz et al., 2017).
47
48
Jo
49
50 3.3 Learning Development
51
ur
52
53 Interaction between industry and university targets establishing an environment as close as
54
na
55 possible to the reality of the workplace, as well as meaningful educational contents for college
56
57 students. To this end, Learning Factories were created as one of the initiatives in academia –
58
l
59
industry integration. Through active learning techniques, on-site or remote, education
60 initiatives connect professors to plant professionals in teaching new manufacturing methods to
1
2
3 students and professionals. Table 6 shows the main ideas presented in documents in connection
4
5 with education and learning in competency development within the context of Industry 4.0.
Be
6
7
9
nc
10
11 Research results by Motyl et al. (2017) evidence that Italian college students display a good
12
hm
13 relationship with digital devices and good knowledge of topics such as Virtual Reality;
14
Augmented Reality; Mixed Reality; Rapid Prototyping; 3D Printing; FABLAB; Industry 4.0;
15
16 Smart factories. These new skill sets are important for students who will be working in an
ark
17
18 increasingly more globalized, automated, virtualized and flexible world. However, are
19
20 universities preparing professionals for these new challenges?
21
ing
22
23 The Learning Factory, according to Wagner et al. (2015), is an experience that develops
24
25 professional competencies in relation to work management, participation and organization, in
:a
26
27
addition to being focused on process improvement and efficient use of resources. The
28 educational paradigm in connection with manufacture must be updated to face the emerging
nI
29
30 challenges in Industry 4.0, from the standpoint of current concepts in industrial training,
31
nt
32 learning and transfer of knowledge, affirm Abele et al. (2017). This new personal competency
33
development paradigm must take into account: training in more realistic manufacturing
34
ern
35 environments, bring learning closer to industrial practices, enhance industrial practices through
36
37 the adoption of new manufacturing technologies, increase the industry’s innovation capacity
38
through problem solving, creativity and holistic perspective of reality. The experiential learning
ati
39
40 cycle was mentioned by Tvenge and Ogorodnyk (2018) and consists in four stages: (I) concrete
41
42 experience, (II) reflexive observation, (III) abstract conceptualization, and (IV) active
on
43
44 experimenting; after this, the cycle starts over. The authors mentioned something that is little
45
used in industrial education (manufacturing education): debriefing, a technique that can help
al
46
47 in identifying best practices, as well as identifying improvements through industrial simulation.
48
Jo
49
50
51 The development of learning in Industry 4.0 has been observed to target competency
ur
52
development, both for professionals, and students. In order for this to take place, a number of
53
54 education strategies may be present such as e-learning, informal learning and social learning.
na
55
56 Learning must be an active process focused on experience, with streams such as game-based
57
58 learning, hybrid learning or hands-on education. Action-based learning can be used in
l
59 academic and professional qualification, whereby students are qualified to internalize

60
1
2
3 knowledge and develop practical skills through self-defined actions in a simulated factory
4
5 environment (Kaluza et al., 2015).
Be
6
7
8
9
Employees, Technology and Organization were the three variables in Learning Factory
nc
10 presented by Wagner et al. (2015). In a simulation about production improvement, students
11
12 worked on the complexity of labor regulation in a negotiation activity between organization
hm
13
14 and employees; not dealing with just technological improvement and higher efficiency issues.
15
Plorin et al. (2015) introduced a proposal for advanced learning factory (aLF) as a reference
16
ark
17 model for learning in Industry 4.0. The authors have established eight steps in the design of
18
19 this learning: (I) identification of the current learning environment, (II) deriving use cases, (III)
20
21 deriving learning modules, (IV) combination of competencies for the learning environment,
ing
22 (V) structure of target group profile competencies, (VI) configuration and parameter definition
23
24 for learning modules, (VII) design of the learning environment, (VIII) integration with existing
25
:a
26 learning environment. The research done by the Motyl et al. (2017) team looked into three
27
28
Italian universities to establish the skills and knowledge required for young engineers in the
nI
29 context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

30
31
nt
32
33 Learning can also be offered by the teaching factory, a practical integration experience
34
between university and industry, with origin stemming from teaching methods used in the
ern
35
36 healthcare area. With a view to a more realistic education, with synchronous and asynchronous
37
38 moments from factory-to-classroom and other from university to a industry (academy-to-
ati
39
40 industry). Simulation may be an experience-driven form of learning, according to Tvenge and
41 Ogorodnyk (2018) and is being used in industrial learning for years for representing a practical
42
on
43 perspective on teaching. The authors mention debriefing as an important aspect in creating

44
45 reflexive students. Debriefing is defined as a facilitator-led simulation experience. Students are
al
46
encouraged to reflect on the simulation and share with other participants, in addition, there is
47
48 feedback about their performance (Tvenge and Ogorodnyk, 2018).
Jo
49
50
51
According to Figure 1 which shows the frequency distribution among the nine dimensions
ur
52
53 mentioned by the authors in keywords, the topic of sustainability was little mentioned in the
54
na
55 keywords, as well as the development of competency and skills. A more in-depth study of the
56
57 content of texts may clarify how education and training are associated to the development of
58
l
59
competencies and skills in Industry 4.0.
60
1
2
3 3.4 Research agenda
4
5
Be
6
7 In closing, questions for future research were collected from articles on the relation between
8
9
Learning and Industry 4.0, found in this systematic literature review, shown in Tables 7, 8 and
nc
10 9, stemming from each of the three constructs, distributed by chronological order of publication.
11
12 Table 7 displays the questions for future studies on the construct Learning Development.
hm
13
14
15
These questions were identified by the reading of the articles considered to data analysis.
16
ark
17 Each one of these questions is proposed as the suggestions made by the respective authors
18
19 according to the three next tables. Then, Table 7, 8 and 9 were built by the compilation of the
20
21 set of suggestions collected from the data analysis.
ing
22
23
25
:a
26
27 Table 8 presents questions for future studies in relation to construct Industry 4.0 Structure.
28
nI
29
30
nt
32
33
34
Table 9 presents questions for future studies in relation to construct Technology Adoption
ern
35
37
38
ati
39 The compilation of future studies indicated in these conferences can serve as a parameter
40
41 to check the evolution of learning and training initiatives in the context of Industry 4.0 in the
42
on
43 next years. Hence, future studies on Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0, grouped into
44
three constructs, have been suggested. The development of competencies and skills should be
45
al
46 associated with the application of new technologies and the managerial models of efficiency
47
48 increase, as well as in the improvement of the interface between the academy and the industry
Jo
49
50 through initiatives like Learning Factory or Teaching Factory. This should be part of industry
51 strategy and university educational planning.
ur
52
53
54
4. Conclusions
na
55
56
57 Ongoing training and professional development in the context of Industry 4.0 may be one of
58
l
today’s priority areas. Organisational Learning in the context of the Fourth Industrial
59
60 Revolution is an important component of business transformation in the digital age, with a
1
2
3 focus on technological products, procedures and processes that are more agile, in an
4
5 environment of complexity and integration among different organizations.
Be
6
7
8
9
This systematic literature review identified 50 articles on the topic of Organisational
nc
10 Learning in Industry 4.0 in the Web of Science and Google Scholar databases, in particular
11
12 publications in events about Learning Factory, with a higher incidence in the title and
hm
13
14 keywords. One of the main limitations of this article is that the data found is mostly focused
15
on Learning Factory approaches, as well as coming from publications in conferences with
16
ark
17 reports of learning experiences in Industry 4.0.

18
19
20
21 Then, future literature reviews should be undertaken in order to get more understanding
ing
22 related to learning in other fields of Industry 4.0’s applications, such as supply chain and
23
24 logistics, services, amongst others. It is also important to emphasize that the majority of articles
25
:a
26 are from refereed events due to the emergent topic of research. Then, having this as another
27
28
limitation, as this subject is better developed along the next years by academics and
nI
29 practitioners new insights may be provided regarding Organisational Learning in the Industry
30
31 4.0’s context in future literature reviews conduction. Also, this study comes from its qualitative
nt
32
33 and exploratory character, in which it is not possible to generalize the constructs presented.
34
Studies on Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0 are still incipient, with the presentation of
ern
35
36 papers at conferences. The research agenda presented at conferences on Organisational
37
38 Learning and Industry 4.0 may not be further explored in scientific articles in the future, and
ati
39
40 this is one of the limitations of this research. Future studies can evaluate the result of the
41 learning initiatives in the context of Industry 4.0 in articles.
42
on
43
44
45 Nine dimensions were identified between Organisational Learning and Industry 4.0, to wit:
al
46
Management, Industry 4.0, General Industry, Technology, Sustainability, Application,
47
48 Interaction between Industry and Academia, Education and Training, Competencies and Skills,
Jo
49
50 which were divided into three constructs: Learning Development, Industry 4.0 Structure and
51
Technology Adoption. From these constructs and their developments, it is possible to identify
ur
52
53 main areas which need to be considered in order to effectively understand and manage Learning
54
na
55 in Industry 4.0’s programs supporting on its Strategic establishment.

56
57
58
l
59
60
1
2
3 4.1 Practical Implications
4
5
Be
6
7 As a practical implication, there is the need to adapt university curricular content, especially
8
9
in the area of engineering, to the requirements of new technologies associated with Industry
nc
10 4.0, such as 3d printing, assistance systems, augmented reality, automation, cyber-physical
11
12 systems, digital transformation, digitalization and internet of things.
hm
13
14
15
The continuous training of professionals and students is necessary in an industrial system
16
ark
17 in constant technological changes, which requires competence for new learning, as well as the
18
19 skills to implement new systems targeted at increasing industrial efficiency, such as action
20
21 orientation, active and collaborative learning, constructivism, e-learning, game-based learning,
ing
22 hands-on education, problem-based learning, simulation, and work-based learning.

23
24
25
:a
26 In addition, this study presents guidelines for the people skills development to be included
27
28
in training and industrial training programs, such as digital skills, capability building,
nI
29 interaction, knowledge interdisciplinary, and skills socio-technical. It provides a significant

30
31 contribution to lifelong learning strategies in Industry 4.0’s initiatives.
nt
32
33
34
4.2 Theoretical Implications
ern
35
36
37
38 Research questions have also been identified for future studies in relation to each of the
ati
39
40 three constructs (Learning Development, Industry 4.0 Structure and Technology Adoption).
41 These questions are described on Table 7, 8 and 9. Special attention should be given to other
42
on
43 areas of knowledge because a holistic view of learning in the context of Industry 4.0 should be
44
45 taken into consideration and not remain focused solely on the areas of engineering. Future
al
46
studies may also address the socio-technical, cultural, administrative, social, and environmental
47
48 implications of the impact of the deployment of Industry 4.0 and its technologies on people's
Jo
49
50 competence development.
51
ur
52
53 Significant researches have been developed on the context of Industry 4.0 such as
54
na
55 Sustainability (Kamble, Gunasekaran and Gawankar, 2018; Jabbour et al., 2018), Lean
56
57 Manufacturing (Sanders, Elangeswaran and Wulfsberg, 2016; Mrugalska and Wyrwicka,
58
l
59
2017), Product Development (Santos et al., 2017), Small and Medium Enterprises - SMEs in
60 Industry 4.0 (Moeuf, 2017), Production Planning and Control (Dolgui, et al., 2018), Strategic
1
2
3 Management ( Lin et al., 2018), Performance Measurement (Frederico, et al.,2020),
4
5 Organisational Structure (Wilkesmann and Wildesmann, 2018), and Supply Chain and Industry
Be
6
7 4.0 (Frederico et al., 2019; Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018 and Kache and Seuring, 2017).
8
9
nc
10 Also, significant research efforts related to the main disruptive technologies of Industry 4.0
11
12 have been deployed such as Big Data Analytics (Queiroz and Telles, 2018; Wamba et al. 2015;
hm
13
14 Gunasekaran et al., 2017; Hazen et al., 2016) and Internet of Things – IoT (Gunasekaran,
15
Subramanian and Tiwari, 2016; Misrha et al.,2016; Ben-Daya, Hassini and Baroun, 2017).
16
ark
17
18
19 References
20 (*) indicates the articles used in the literature review
21
ing
22
23 Abele, E., Chryssolouris, G., Sihn, W., Metternich, J., ElMaraghy, H., Seliger, G., Sivard, G.,
24 ElMaraghy, W., Hummel, V., Tisch, M. and Seifermann. S. (2017), “Learning Factories
25 for future oriented research and education in manufacturing”, CIRP Annals,
:a
26 Manufacturing Technology 66, pp. 803-826, available at:

27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2017.05.005 (*)
28
nI
29 Abele, E., Metternich, J., Tisch, M., Chryssolouris, G., Sihn, W., ElMaraghy, H., Hummel, V.
30 and Ranz, F. (2015), “Learning Factories for research, education, and training”, The 5th
31 Conference on Learning Factories 2015, Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 1-6, available at:
nt
32
33
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.187 (*)
34 Al-Kurdi, O., El-Haddadeh, R. and Eldabi, T. (2018), “Knowledge sharing in higher education
ern
35 institutions: a systematic review”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol.

36
31 No.2, pp. 226-246, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2017-0129.
37
38 Ansari, F., Erol, S. and Sihn, W. (2018), “Rethinking Human-Machine Learning in Industry
ati
39 4.0: How Does the Paradigm Shift Treat the Role of Human Learning?”, 8th Conference
40 on Learning Factories 2018. Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 117-122. (*)
41
42 Ardito, L., Petruzzelli, A., Panniello, M.U. and Garavelli, A.C. (2019), “Towards Industry 4.0:
on
43 Mapping digital technologies for supply chain management-marketing integration”,

44 Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 323-346, available at: https://
45
doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-04-2017-0088
al
46
47 Aydin, S. (2018), “Augmented reality goggles selection by using neutrosophic
48 MULTIMOORA method”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 31 No.
Jo
49
4, pp. 565-576, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2018-0023
50
51 Baena, F., Guarin, A., Mora, J., Sauza, J. and Retat, S. (2017), “Learning Factory: The Path to
ur
52 Industry 4.0”, 7th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp. 73-
53 80, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.022 (*)
54
na
55
56
57
58 Baker, J.M. and Sinkula, W.E. (1999), “The synergetic effect of Market Orientation and
l
59 Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance”, Journal of the Academy of

60
1
2
3 Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 411-27, available at:
4
5
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399274002
Be
6
7 Bauer, H., Brandl, F., Lock, C. and Reinhart, G. (2018), “Integration of Industrie 4.0 in Lean
8 Manufacturing Learning Factories”, 8th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia
9 Manufacturing 23, pp. 147-152, available at:
nc
10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.008 (*)
11
12 Bauernhansl, T., Tzempetonidou, M., Rossmeissl, T., Groß, E. and Siegert, J. (2018),
hm
13 “Requirements for designing a cyber-physical system for competence development”, 8th
14 Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 201-206, available
15
at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.017 (*)
16
ark
17
18 Ben-Dayaa M., Hassinib, E. and Bahrouna Z. (2017), “Internet of Things and Supply Chain
19 Management: A Literature Review”, International Journal of Production Research. In
20 press, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402140
21
ing
22
Bienhaus, F. and Haddud, A. (2018), “Procurement 4.0: factors influencing the digitisation of
23
24
procurement and supply chains”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4,
25 pp. 965-984, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2017-0139.
:a
26
27 Bohner, J., Weeber, M., Kuebler, F. and Steinhilper. R. (2015), “Developing a learning factory
28 to increase resource efficiency in composite manufacturing processes”, The 5th
nI
29 Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 64-69, available at:
30
31
nt
32 Büth, L., Blume, S., Posselt, G. and Herrmann, C. (2018), “Training concept for and with
33 digitalization in learning factories: an energy efficiency training case”, 8th Conference
34
on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 171-176, available at:
ern
35
37 Büyüközkan, G. and Göçer, F. (2018) “Digital Supply Chain: Literature review and a proposed
38
framework for future research”, Computers in Industry, Vol.97, pp. 157-177.
ati
39
40
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.02.010
41 Cachay, J., Wennemer, J., Abele, E. and Tenberg, R. (2012), “Study on action-oriented learning
42 with a Learning Factory approach”, International Conference on New Horizons in
on
43
44
Education INTE2012. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 55, pp. 1144-1153,
45 available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.608 (*)
al
46
47 Chen, D., Doumeingts, G. and Vernadat, F. (2008), “Architectures for enterprise integration
48 and interoperability: Past, present and future”, Computers in Industry 59, pp. 647-659,
Jo
49 available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.016

50
51
Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., Sethi, S. P. and Sokolov, B. (2018) “Scheduling in production, supply
ur
52
53 chain and Industry 4.0 systems by optimal control: fundamentals, state-of-the-art and
54 applications”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol.57 No.2, pp. 1-22.
na
55 https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1442948
56
57
58
l
Elbestawi, M., Centea, D., Singh, I. and Wanyama, T. (2018), “SEPT Learning Factory for
59
60
Industry 4.0 Education and Applied Research”, 8th Conference on Learning Factories.
1
2
3 Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 249-254, available at:
4
5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.025 (*)
Be
6 ElMaraghy, H. and ElMaraghy, W. (2015), “Learning Integrated Product and Manufacturing
7 Systems”, The 5th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 19-24,
8
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.222 (*)
9
nc
10 Enke, J., Glass, R., Kreß, A., Hambach, J., Tisch, M. and Mettermich, J. (2018), “Industrie 4.0
11 - competencies for a modern production system - a curriculum for Learning Factories”,
12
8th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 267-272,
hm
13
14
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.028 (*)
15 Enke, J., Kraft, K. and Metternich, J. (2015), “Competency-oriented design of learning
16 modules”, The 5th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 7-12,
ark
17
18
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.211 (*)
19 Erro-Garcés, A. (2019), “Industry 4.0: defining the research agenda”, Benchmarking: An
20 International Journal. In Press, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0444
21
ing
22 Faller, C. and Feldmüller. D. (2015), “Industry 4.0 Learning Factory for regional SMEs”, The
23 5th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 88-91, available at:
24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.117 (*)
25
:a
26
27 Frank, A. G., Mendes, G. H., Ayala, N.F. and Ghezzi, A. (2019). Servitization and Industry 4.0
28 convergence in the ditital transformation of product firms: A busines model innovation
nI
29 perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.141, pp. 341-

30
31
351. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.014
nt
32
33 Frederico, G. F., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Anosike, A. and Kumar, V. (2019). Supply Chain 4.0:
34 concepts, maturity and research agenda. Supply Chain Management, Vol.25 No.2, pp.
ern
35 262-282. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2018-0339
36
37
Frederico, G., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Kumar, A. and Kumar, V. (2020). Performance
38
Measurement for Supply Chains in the Industry 4.0 Era: A Balanced Scorecard
ati
39
40 Approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, in
41 press, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2019-0400
42
on
43
Ghobakhloo, M. (2018), “The future of manufacturing industry: a strategic roadmap toward
44 Industry 4.0”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp.
45 910-936, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-02-2018-0057
al
46
Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S. F., Childe, S. J., Hazen, B. and
47
48 Akter, S. (2017) “Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and Organizational
Performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol.70, pp. 308-317.
Jo
49
50 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.004
51
ur
52 Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N. and Tiwari, M. K. (2016) “Information technology

53 governance in Internet of Things supply chain networks”, Industrial Management &
54
Data Systems, Vol.116 No.7. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-06-2016-0244
na
55
56
57 Hancock, P. and Tyler, M. (2008), “Beyond the confines: management, colonization and the
58 everyday”, Critical Sociology, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 29-49, available at:
l
59 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0896920507084622
60
1
2
3
4
5
Hazen, B. T., Skipper, J. B., Ezell, J. D. and Boone, C. A. (2016) “Big data and predictive
analytics for supply chain sustainability: A theory-driven research agenda”, Journal of
Be
6
7 Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol.101, pp.592-598.
8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.06.030
9
nc
10 Hermann, M., Bücker, I. and Otto, B. (2019), “Industrie 4.0 process transformation: findings
11 from a case study in automotive logistics”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
12 Management. In Press, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0274
hm
13
14
Hummel, V., Hyra, K., Ranz, F. and Schuhmacher, J. (2015), “Competence development for
15 the holistic design of collaborative work systems in the logistics Learning Factory”, The
16 5th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 76-81, available at:
ark
18
19 Jabbour, A. B. L S., Jabbour, C.J.C., Godinho Filho, M. and Roubaud, D. (2018) “Industry 4.0
20 and the circular economy: a proposed research agenda and original roadmap for
21 sustainable operations”, Annals of Operations Research. Vol.270 No.1, pp. 273-286.
ing
22 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2772-8
23
24
Kache, F. and Seuring, S. (2017) “Challenges and opportunities of digital information at the
25
:a
26
intersection of Big Data Analytics and supply chain management”, International Journal
27 of Operations & Production Management, Vol.37 No.1, pp.10-36.
28 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2015-0078
nI
29
30 Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W. and Helbig, J. (2013), “Recommendations for implementing the
31 strategic initiative Industrie 4.0”, Frankfurt: Acatech. Germany. Available at:
nt
32
33
https://www.din.de/blob/76902/e8cac883f42bf28536e7e8165993f1fd/recommendations
34 -for-implementing-industry-4-0-data.pdf
ern
35
36 Kaluza, A., Juraschek, M., Neef, B., Pittschellis, R., Posselt, G., Thiede, S. and Herrmann, C.
37 (2015), “Designing learning environments for energy efficiency through model scale
38 production processes”, The 5th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 32,
ati
39
pp. 41-46, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.114 (*)
40
41 Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A. and Gawankar, S. A. (2018) “Sustainable Industry 4.0
42 framework: A systematic literature reviewidentifying the current trends and future
on
43
perspectives”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol.117, pp.408-425.
44
45
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.05.009
al
46 Karre, H., Hammer, M., Kleindienst, M. and Ramsauer, C. (2017), “Transition towards an
47 Industry 4.0 state of the LeanLab at Graz University of Technology”, 7th Conference on
48
Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp. 206-213, available at:
Jo
49
51 Kreitlein, S., Höft, A., Schwender, S. and Franke, J. (2015), “Green Factories Bavaria: a
ur
52
network of distributed Learning Factories for energy efficient production”, The 5th
53
54 Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 58-63, available at:
na
55
56
Küsters, D., Praβ, N. and Gloy, Y.S. (2017), “Textile Learning Factory 4.0 - Preparing
57
58
Germany´s Textile Industry for the Digital Future”, 7th Conference on Learning
l
59 Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp. 214-221, available at:

1
2
3 Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E. and Ramos, L.F.P. (2017), “Past, present and future of
4
5
Industry 4.0 a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 3609-3629, available at:
Be
6
7 https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576
8
9 Lin, D., Lee, C.K.M., Lau, H. and Yang, Y. (2018) “Strategic response to Industry 4.0: an
nc
10 empirical investigation on the Chinese automotive industry”, Industrial Management &
11
Data Systems, Vol.118 No.3, pp. 589-605. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2017-0403
12
hm
13 Louw, L. and Walker, M. (2018), “Design and implementation of a low cost RFID track and
14 trace system in a learning factory”, 8th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia
15
Manufacturing 23, pp. 255-260, available at:
16
ark
17
18
19 Lu, Y. (2017), “Industry 4.0: A Survey on Technologies, Applications and Open Research”,
20 Journal of Industrial Information Integration 6, pp. 1-10, available at:
21
ing
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2017.04.005
22
23
24
Madsen, O. and Møller, C. (2017), “The AAU Smart Production Laboratory for teaching and
25 research in emerging digital manufacturing technologies”, 7th Conference on Learning
:a

28
nI
29 McHugh, D., Groves, D. and Alker, A. (1998), “Managing learning: what do we learn from a
30
31
learning organization?”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 209-220,
nt
32 available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479810238215

33
34 Mishra, D., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R. and Wamba, S. (2016)
ern
35 “Vision, applications and future challenges of Internet of Things: A bibliometric study

36 of the recent literature”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.116 No.7, pp.
37
1331-1355. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-11-2015-0478.
38
ati
39 Motyl, B., Baronio, G., Uberti, S., Speranza, D. and Filippi, S. (2017), “How will change the
40 future engineers' skills in the Industry 4.0 framework? A questionnaire survey”, 27th
41
International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing,
42
on
43
FAIM2017, 27-30 June 2017, Modena, Italy. Procedia Manufacturing 11, pp. 1501-
45 Moeuf, A., Pellerin, R., Lamouri, S., Tamayo-Giraldo, S. and Barbaray, R. (2017) “The
al
46
47
industrial management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0”, International Journal of
48 Production Research, Vol.56 No.3) 1118-1136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1372647
Jo
49
50
51 Mrugalska, B. and Wyrwicka, M.K. (2017) “Towards Lean Production in Industry 4.0”,
ur
52 Procedia Manufacturing, Vol.182, pp.466-473.

53
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.135
54
na
55 Muschard, B. and Seliger, G. (2015), “Realization of a learning environment to promote

56 sustainable value creation in areas with insufficient infrastructure”, The 5th Conference
57 on Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 70-75, available at:
58
l
59
60
1
2
3 Nosalska, K., Piątek, Z., Mazurek, G. and Rządca, R. (2019), “Industry 4.0: coherent definition
4
5
framework with technological and Organizational interdependencies”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management. In Press, available at:
Be
6
7 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0238
8
Nunes, M.L., Pereira, A.C. and Alves, A.C. (2017), “Smart products development approaches
9
nc
10 for Industry 4.0”, 7th Conference on Learning Factories 2017. Procedia Manufacturing
11 13, pp. 1215-1222, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.035 (*)
12
Oberc, H., Reuter, M., Wannoffel, M. and Kuhlenkotter, B. (2018), “Development of a learning
hm
13
14
factory concept to train participants regarding digital and human centered decision support”,
15 8th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 165-170, available
16 at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.011 (*)
ark
17
18
Pittschellis, R. (2015), “Multimedia Support for Learning Factories”, The 5th Conference on
19 Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 36-40, available at:
21
ing
Plorin, D., Jentsch, D., Hopf, H. and Müller, E. (2015), “Advanced Learning Factory (aLF) -
22
23 Method, Implementation and Evaluation”, The 5th Conference on Learning Factories
24 2015. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 13-18, available at:
:a
26
27
Prinz, C., Kreggenfeld, N. and Kuhlenkötter. B. (2018), “Lean meets Industrie 4.0 - a practical
28 approach to interlink the method world and cyber-physical world”, 8th Conference on
nI
29 Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 21-26, available at:

31
nt
32 Prinz, C., Kreimeier, D. and Kuhlenkötter, B. (2017), “Implementation of a learning

33 environment for an Industrie 4.0 assistance system to improve the overall equipment
34 effectiveness”, 7th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp.
ern
35 159-166, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.004 (*)

36
37 Prinz, C., Morlock, F., Freith, S., Kreggenfeld, N., Kreimeier, D. and Kuhlenkötter, B. (2016),
38 “Learning Factory modules for smart factories in Industrie 4.0”, 6th CIRP Conference
ati
39 on Learning Factories 2016. Procedia CIRP 54, pp. 113-118, available at:
41
42 Queiroz, M. M. and Telles, R. (2018) “Big data analytics in supply chain and logistics: an
on
43 empirical approach”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol.29 No.2,

44 pp.767-783. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-05-2017-0116
45
Rejikumar G., Raja Sreedharan, V., Arunprasad, P., Persis, J. and Sreeraj K.M. (2019),
al
46
47 “Industry 4.0: key findings and analysis from the literature arena”, Benchmarking: An
48 International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 2514-2542, available at:
Jo
49 https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2018-0281
50
51 Rentzos L, Mavrikios D. and Chryssolouris, G. (2015), “A two-way knowledge interaction in
ur
52 manufacturing education: the teaching factory”, The 5th Conference on Learning

53 Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 31-35, available at:
na
55
56
57
58 Reuter, M., Oberc, H., Wannöffel, M., Kreimeier, D., Klippert, J., Pawlicki, P. and
l
59 Kuhlenkötter, B. (2017), “Learning factories´ trainings as an enabler of proactive

60 workers´ participation regarding Industrie 4.0”, 7th Conference on Learning Factories.
1
2
3 Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp. 354-360, available at:
4
5
Be
6 Rocha, L., Savio, E., Marxer, M. and Ferreira, F. (2018), “Education and training in coordinate
7 metrology for industry towards digital manufacturing”, Journal of Physics: Conference
8
Series 1044, available at: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-
9
nc
10 6596/1044/1/012026 (*)
11
12
Sanders, A., Elangeswaran, C. and Wulfsberg, J. (2016) “Industry 4.0 Implies Lean
hm
13
14
Manufacturing: Research Activities in Industry 4.0 Function as Enablers for Lean
15 Manufacturing”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol.9 No.3, pp.
16 811-833. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1940
ark
17
18 Santos, K., Loures, E., Piechnicki, F. and Canciglieri, O. (2017) “Opportunities Assessment of
19 Product Development Process in Industry 4.0”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol.11,
20
pp.1358-1365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.265
21
ing
22 Schallock, B., Rybski, C., Jochem, R. and Kohl, H. (2018), “Learning Factory for Industry 4.0
23 to provide future skills beyond technical training”, 8th Conference on Learning Factories
24
2018. Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 27-32, available at:
25
:a
26
27
28 Schein, E. (1996), “Three cultures of management: the key to Organizational learning”, Sloan
nI
29 Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 9-20. Available at:

30 https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/three-cultures-of-management-the-key-to-
31 Organizational-learning/
nt
32
33
34 Schuh. G., Gartzen, T., Rodenhauser, T. and Marks, A. (2015), “Promoting work-based
ern
35 learning through Industry 4.0”, The 5th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia
36 CIRP 32, pp. 82-87, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.213 (*)
37
38 Schuhmacher, J., Baumung, W. and Hummel, V. (2017), “An intelligent bin system for
decentrally controlled intralogistic systems in context of Industrie 4.0”, 7th Conference
ati
39
40 on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp. 135-142, available at:
42
on
43 Seitz, K.F. and Nyhuis, P. (2015), “Cyber-Physical Production Systems Combined with
44 Logistic Models - A Learning Factory Concept for an Improved Production Planning and
45 Control”, The 5th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 92-97,
al
46 available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.220 (*)

47
48 Simons, S., Abé, P. and Neser, S. (2017), “Learning in the AutFab - the fully automated
Jo
49 Industrie 4.0 learning factory of the University of Applied Sciences Darmstadt”, 7th
50 Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp. 81-88, available at:
ur
52
53
54
Simper, N., Gauthier, L. and Scott, J. (2018). “Student learning in the workplace: The Learning
na
55
56 Evaluation and Reflection Narrative (LEARN) framework”, Journal of Workplace
57 Learning, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 658-671, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-04-
58 2018-0060
l
59
60
1
2
3 Sony, M. and Naik, S. (2019), “Key ingredients for evaluating Industry 4.0 readiness for
4
5
organizations: a literature review”, Benchmarking: An International Journal. In Press,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2018-0284
Be
6
7 Soomro, Z.A., Ahmed, J., Shah, M.H. and Khoumbati, K. (2019), “Investigating identity fraud
8
management practices in e-tail sector: a systematic review”, Journal of Enterprise
9
nc
10 Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 301-324, available at:
11 https://doi.org/10.1108/ JEIM-06-2018-0110.
12
Steinbuß, S,. Holtkamp, B. and Opriel, S. (2017), “HANDELkopentent - situation aware
hm
13
14
learning in retail”, 7th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp.
15 245-253, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.048 (*)
16 Tortorella, G.L., Vergara, A.M. C., Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Sawhney, R. (2020),
ark
17
18
“Organizational learning paths based upon industry 4.0 adoption: An empirical study
19 with Brazilian manufacturers”, International Journal of Production Economics 219, pp.
20 284-294, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.023
21
ing
22 Tranfield, D.R., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing
23 evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British.
24
Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 217-222, available at:
25
:a
26 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
27
28 Trstenjak, M. and Cosic, P. (2017), “Process planning in Industry 4.0 environment”, 27th
nI
29 International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing

30 FAIM2017. Procedia Manufacturing 11, pp. 1744-1750, available at:
31
nt
32
33 Tvenge, N. and Martinsen, K. (2018), “Integration of digital learning in Industry 4.0”, 8th
ern
35 at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.027 (*)

36
37 Tvenge, N. and Ogorodnyk, O. (2018), “Development of evaluation tools for learning factories
38 in manufacturing education”, 8th Conference on Learning Factories 2018. Procedia
ati
39 Manufacturing 23, pp. 33-38, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.157

40
(*)
41
42 Uhlemann, T.H.J., Schock, C., Lehmann, C., Freiberger, S. and Steinhilper, R. (2017), “The
on
43 Digital Twin: demonstrating the potential or real time data acquisition in production
44
systems”, 7th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp. 113-
45
120, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.043 (*)
al
46
47 Vila, C., Ugarte, D., Rios, J. and Abellán, J.V. (2017), “Project-based collaborative engineering
48 learning to develop Industry 4.0 skills within a PLM framework”, Manufacturing
Jo
49
50
Engineering Society International Conference. Procedia Manufacturing 13, pp. 1269-
ur
52
53
54
na
55
56 Wagire, A., Rathore, A. and Jain, R. (2019), "Analysis and synthesis of Industry 4.0 research
57 landscape: Using latent semantic analysis approach", Journal of Manufacturing
58 Technology Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 31-51, available at:
l
59 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2018-0349
60
1
2
3 Wagner, P., Prinz, S., Wannöffel, M. and Kreimeier, D. (2015), “Learning Factory for
4
5
management, organization and workers´ participation”, The 5th Conference on Learning
Factories. Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 31-35, available at:
Be
6
8
Wagner, U., AlGeddawy, T., ElMaraghy, H. and Müller, E. (2012), “The state-of-the-art and
9
nc
10 prospects of Learning Factories”, 45th Conference on Manufacturing Systems 2012.
11 Procedia CIRP 3, pp. 109-114, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.020
12 (*)
hm
13
14
Wamba, S. F., Akter, S., Edwards, A., Chopin, G. and Gnanzou, D. (2015),”How ‘big data’
15 can make big impact: Findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study”,
16 International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.165, pp.234-246.
ark
17 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.031
18
19 Wank, A., Adolph, S., Anokhin, O., Arndt, A., Anderl, R. and Metternich, J. (2016), “Using a
20 learning factory approach to transfer Industrie 4.0 approaches to small- and medium-
21 sized enterprises”, 6th CIRP Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia CIRP 54, pp.
ing
22 89-94, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.068 (*)

23
24
Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002), “Analysing the past to prepare for the future”, MIS
25
:a
26 Quartely, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 8-23, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4132319

27
28 Wiech, M., Böllhoff, J. and Metternich, J. (2017), “Development of an optical object detection
nI
29 solution for defect prevention in a Learning Factory”, 7th Conference on Learning

31
nt
32
33 Wienbruch, T., Leineweber, S., Kreimeier, D. and Kuhlenkötter. B. (2018), “Evolution of
34 SMEs towards Industrie 4.0 through a scenario based learning factory training”, 8th
ern

36
37
at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.007 (*)
38 Wilkesmann, M. and Wilkesmann, U. (2018) “Industry 4.0 – organizing routines or
ati
39 innovations?”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management System,

40
Vol.48 No.2, pp. 238-254. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-04-2017-0019
41
42
on
43 Yang, S., Hamann, K., Haefner, B., Wu, C. and Lanza G. (2018), “A method for improving
44 production management training by integrating an Industry 4.0 innovation center in
45 China”, 8th Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 213-218,
al
46 available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.019 (*)

47
48
Jo
49
50
51 APPENDIX I
ur
52
53 [Appendix I – Insert here]
54
na
55
56
57
58
l
59
60
1
2
3
4 Table 1 – Steps of Systematic Literature Review based on Tranfield et al. (2003)
5 Planning the review (I)
Be
6 Database search Web of Science Google Scholar
7 Words ("learning" and "industry ("learning" and "industry
8 4.0" or "industries 4.0") 4.0" or "industries 4.0")
9
nc
10
Place Article title, Abstract, Article title, Abstract,
11 keywords. keywords.
12 Years 2012 a 2019 2012 a 2019
hm
13 Conducting a review (II)
14 Finding proceedings papers (457) Proceedings papers and
15 and articles (185). articles (345).
16
Refining Reading of title, abstract Reading of title, abstract and
ark
17
18 and keywords. keywords.
19
20 Exclusion Articles no containing Articles no containing
21
ing
Learning and Industry 4.0 Learning and Industry 4.0 in

22 in the keywords, title or the keywords, title or
23
24
abstract. abstract.
25
:a
26 Result 50 proceedings and articles.

27 Reporting and dissemination
28 (III)
nI
29 Findings (Dimensions of Findings (Dimensions of

30
31
Learning in Industry 4.0). Learning in Industry 4.0).
nt
32
33
34
ern
35
36
37
38
ati
39
Table 2 – Year of publication of documents
40
Year Frequency Percentage
41
2012 2 4%
42
on
43 2013 0 0%
44
45 2014 0 0%
al
46
47 2015 15 30%
48
2016 2 4%
Jo
49
50 2017 16 32%
51
ur
52 2018 15 30%
53
54
na
55
56
57
58
l
59
60
1
2
3 Table 3 - Events or Journals from which publications were originated
4 Event or Journals Frequency Percentage
5 The 5th CIRP Conference on Learning Factories 2015 15 30%
Be
9
nc
Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017 2 4%
10 MESIC 2017
11 27th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent 2 4%
12 Manufacturing FAIM2017
hm
13 International Conference on News Horizons in Education INTE 2012 1 2%
14 CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 1 2%
15 45th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems 2012 1 2%
16 2017 IMEKO TC1 TC7 TC13 Joint Symposium 1 2%
ark
17
18
19
20
21
ing
Table 4 – First Construct: Industry 4.0 Structure

22
23 Dimensions Keywords
24 Factory Management. Works participation. Production Planning and
Control. Lean Management. Logistics. Classification. Collaboration.
25
:a
Constructive Alignment. Context Recognition. Cost-efficient Qualification.

26
Management Decent Work. Design. Factory Management. Interaction. Knowledge
27
Exchange. Lean. Maturity Model. Middle Management. New Product
28
nI
Development. Optimization. Performance Management. Poka-Yoke. Shop

29 floor top floor integration. Social innovation. Track and Trace. Works
30 council. Works participation. Innovation center.
31
nt
32 Industry 4.0 Classification. Industrie 4.0. Industry 4.0. Smart factory. Smart production.
33 Smart products. Smart textiles.
34
ern
35 Changeable manufacturing systems. Closed loop material cycles. Digital

36 General Industry business engineering. Empirical production research. Human-machine
37 interaction. Human-machine-interface. Industrial engineering. Intelligent
38 manufacturing. Lean management. Lean manufacturing systems. Lean
ati
39 manufacturing. Lean. Low cost automation. Machine level. Manufacturing

40 engineering. Manufacturing systems. Mini-factory. Operating figures.
41 Process optimization. Process planning. Product lifecycle management.
42 Product planning. Production planning and control. Production planning
on
43 and steering. Quality techniques of lean production. Scheduling.

44
45
al
46
47 Table 5 – Second Construct: Technology Adoption
48 Dimensions Keywords
Jo
49 Technology 3d printing. Assistance systems. Augmented reality. Automation. Cyber-

50 physical systems. CPS. Cyber-physical production systems. Digital
51 transformation. Digital twin. Digitalization. Digitization. Internet of things.
ur
52 IoT. Raspberry pi. RFID.

53 Application Context recognition. Debriefing. Digital and human centered decision
54 support. Ergonomics. Industrial learning. Intelligent bin system.
na
55 Learnstrument. Lightweight design. Machine learning. Model scale.

56 Morphology. Multimedia. Object detection. Self-sufficient manufacturing
57 system.
58
l
Sustainability Sustainability. Sustainability in Manufacturing. Energy Efficiency.

59 Effiziente Fabrik 4.0. Energy and resource efficiency. Energy-efficient
60 Production.
1
2
3
4 Table 6 – Third Construct: Learning Development
5
Dimension Keywords
Be
6
7 Interaction between industry Experiential learning. Experimental factories. Industrial and university
8 and academia learning. Learning factories. Learning factory. Manufacturing education.
Manufacturing research. Scenario based. Teaching factory.
9
nc
Education and Training Action orientation. Active learning. Blended learning. Collaborative
10
learning. Constructivism. Didactic. Education. E-learning. Engineering
11
education. Further education. Game-based learning. Hands-on education
12
hm
Human learning. Hybrid learning. Informal learning. Integrated teaching.
13 Learning concepts. Learning environment. Learning objective taxonomy.
14 Learning simulations. Problem-based learning. Project based learning.
15 Reciprocal learning. Simulation. Situation aware learning. Social learning.
16 Training. Training concept. Training development. Vocational training.
ark
17 Work-based learning.
18 Competency and Skills Body of knowledge. Capability building. Competence development.
19 Competencies. Competency. Competency development. Competency
20 transformation. Digital skills. Future skill demand. Industry 4.0 skills.
21
ing
Interaction. Interdisciplinary research-groups. Socio-technical. Student

22 skills.
23
24
Table 7 – Research agenda for future studies: Learning Development
25
:a
26
Questions and Research Directions Authors
27
28 How to integrate educational content with the development of an energy efficiency Kaluza et al., 2015
nI
29 infrastructure in industry? Kreitlein et al.,2015

30 What is the impact of game-based learning on training students and practitioners in Bohner et al., 2015
31 Industry 4.0 practices?
nt
32 How to promote a new teaching factory paradigm that includes a new business Rentzos et al., 2015
33 model that facilitates the two-way flow of knowledge exchange through a Teaching
34 Factory Network in which there are multiple classrooms and multiple factories
ern
35 interconnected in remote learning and training channels?

36 How to apply a systemic approach to learning theory to teach lean manufacturing, Pittschellis, R., 2015
37 automation technology, energy efficiency and process development in learning Schuhmacher et
38 factories? al.,2017
How are university teachers bringing their effective application of digital skills in Motyl et al., 2017
ati
39
40 Industry 4.0 into their classrooms?
41
42 What are the dimensions of a replicable guideline for the gradual implementation Baena et al., 2017
on
43 of a Learning Factory? Karre et al., 2017

44 What are the needs of the industry of the future that can help in planning the Schallock et al., 2018
content needed to develop employee training?
45
How to promote collaboration in interdisciplinary research among educators, data Ansari et al., 2018
al
46
scientists and cognitive psychologists in learning production and operation
47
management in an integrated vision?
48
What new research fields can be applied to Learning Factories? Oberc et al., 2018
Jo
49
Prinz et al., 2018
50
What adjustments must be made in academic curricula given the new challenges of Enke et al., 2018
51 a changing industrial environment?
ur
52 How to extend to new devices, in addition to desktops or laptops, the blended Rocha et al., 2018
53 learning approach in university and industrial teaching environments, using
54 various platforms, such as smartphones and tablets connected to the wireless
na
55 network infrastructure, to promote learning inside and outside the industry?

56 Future studies may seek more knowledge about the application of debriefing in Tvenge and
57 industrial education associated with simulation processes, in particular in the Ogorodnyk, 2018
58
l
context of teaching and learning.

59 How to combine online learning and face-to-face training for production Yang et al., 2018
60 managers, production line leaders and production operators in developing
1
2
3 theoretical and practical training in the principles of Industry 4.0?
4
5 Table 8 – Research agenda for future studies: Industry 4.0 Structure
Be
6 Questions and Research Directions Authors
7 Future studies on manufacturing systems can address: Innovation and design of Wagner et al., 2012
8 manufacturing systems, Models and enablers of product variety, New organization
9
nc
concepts for changeable manufacturing systems, Models and enablers for
10 changeable production planning and control for changes in market demands,
11 Concepts and solutions for process planning for product and system variants.
12 How to integrate shop floor and top-floor processes in cloud-based services in Faller and Feldmüller,
hm
13 small and micro-enterprises into a holistic view of learning? 2015
14 How to ensure the transfer of knowledge through the training of professionals from Wank et al., 2016
15 small and micro enterprises, especially through learning factories, at regional
16 level?
ark
17 How to offer product-service systems (PSS) with a holistic customer solution and Prinz et al., 2016
18 not just the product or service offer, exclusively? With the implementation of the
19 PSS, what changes will be needed in production-driven companies?
20 How are small and medium businesses learning about Industry 4.0's new Motyl et al., 2017
21 technologies and digital skills? Madsen and Møller,
ing
22 2017
23 Wienbruch et al.,2018
24 How to overcome the hesitation to adopt the principles of Industry 4.0 due to Küsters et al., 2017
25 implementation barriers such as the real financial benefit of new investments, as
:a
26 well as overcome the lack of specialized knowledge?

27 How to promote Industrial Citizenship, i.e., the participation of people in decisions Reuter et al., 2017
28 in industry, and the promotion of workers' social rights in facing the effects of
nI
29 digitizing production systems?

30
31
nt
32
33
34 Table 9 – Research agenda for future studies: Technology Adoption
ern
35
36 Questions and Research Directions Authors
37
38 How to qualify students and industry employees to apply the advantages of cyber- Seitz and Nyhuis, 2015
physical systems in production planning, control and monitoring?
ati
39
How can students identify the technological resources available that are most Vila et al., 2017
40
appropriate in a particular production process and what should they be used for?
41
How to develop Learning Factories for institutions with reduced budgets, using Abele et al., 2017
42
on
equipment, hardware and simpler, but sufficient and representative, software to

43
train employees and students for Industry 4.0?
44
How to develop computer science skills in production engineers through academic Wiech et al., 2017
45 and industrial training given the industry digitizing trend in order to implement the
al
46 best digital solutions to add value?

47 Investigation must be expanded on the effects of Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Nunes et al., 2017
48 Reality (AR) or Mixed Reality (MR) on human factors, mainly studies on the critical
Jo
49 factors of the use of wearables, fatigue effects and optical quality of the equipment
50 The implementation of Industry 4.0 processes will change some professions due to Trstenjak and Cosic,
51 automation. What will be the profile of the professionals who plan processes in 2017
ur
52 industries?
53 How to develop a more economical and sustainable RFID system for use in a Louw and Walker,
54 learning factory? 2018
na
55
56
57
58
l
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
APPENDIX I
Be
6
7
8
9
nc
Scattering of unique Keywords indicated by the authors in their articles.
10
11 126 unique Keywords (alphabetic order)
12 1 3d printing 64 interaction
hm
13 2 action orientation 65 interdisciplinary research-groups
14
15 3 active learning 66 internet of things
16 4 assistance systems 67 IoT
ark
17 5 augmented reality 68 knowledge exchange

18 6 Automation 69 lean
19
20 7 body of knowledge 70 learn instrument
21 8 capability building 71 learning concepts
ing
22 9 change enablers 72 learning environment

23 10 changeable manufacturing systems 73 learning objective taxonomy
24
25 11 Classification 74 learning simulations
:a
26 12 closed loop material cycles 75 lightweight design

27 13 Collaboration 76 low cost automation
28
nI
14 collaborative learning 77 machine learning

29
30 15 Competencies 78 machine level
31 16 Competency 79 manufacturing research
nt
32 17 competency development 80 manufacturing systems

33 18 competency transformation 81 maturity model
34
ern
35 19 composite material 82 middle management

36 20 constructive alignment 83 mini-factory
37 21 Constructivism 84 model scale
38 22 context recognition 85 morphology
ati
39
40 23 cost-efficient qualification 86 multimedia
41 24 CPS 87 new product development
42 25 data management 88 object detection
on
43 26 debriefing 89 operating figures

44
45 27 decent work 90 optimization
al
46 28 decision support 91 performance management

47 29 design 92 poka-yoke
48 30 didactic 93 problem-based learning
Jo
49 digital and human centered decision

50 94 process optimization
31 support
51 95 process planning
32 digital business engineering
ur
52 96 product lifecycle management

53 33 digital skills
97 product planning
54 34 digital solutions
na
55 98 production management
35 digital twin
56 99 quality techniques of lean production
36 digitization
57 100 questionnaire
58 37 effiziente fabrik 4.0
l
101 raspberry pi
59 38 empirical production research
60 102 reciprocal learning
39 energy and resource efficiency
1
2
3
40 energy-efficient production 103 RFID
4
5 41 ergonomics 104 scenario based
Be
6 42 error detection 105 scheduling
7 43 evaluation, 106 self-sufficient manufacturing system
8
44 evaluation tools 107 shop floor-top floor integration
9
nc
10 45 experiential learning 108 simulation
11 46 experimental factories 109 situation aware learning
12 47 factory management 110 smart factory
hm
13
48 further education 111 smart production
14
15 49 future skill demand 112 smart products
16 50 game-based learning 113 smart textiles
ark
17 51 hands-on education 114 social innovation

18
52 human learning 115 social learning
19
20 53 human-machine interaction 116 socio-technical
21
ing
54 human-machine-interface 117 student skills, sustainability

22 55 hybrid learning 118 sustainability in manufacturing
23
56 indirect sector 119 teaching factory
24
25 57 industrial engineering 120 track and trace
:a
26 58 industrial learning 121 training concept

27 59 industry 4.0 skills 122 training development
28
nI
60 informal learning 123 vocational training

29
30 61 innovation center 124 work-based learning
31 62 intelligent bin 125 works council
nt
32 63 intelligent manufacturing 126 works participation

33
34
ern
35
36
37
38
ati
39
40
41
42
on
43
44
45
al
46
47
48
Jo
49
50
51
ur
52
53
54
na
55
56
57
58
l
59
60

The Ability of Project Managers To Implement Industry 4.0-Related Projects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ability of Project Managers To Implement Industry 4.0-Related Projects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benchmarking: an International Journal

Industry 4.0, Learning, Manufacturing Industry, Technology,

respective dimensions and constructs found out on this research.

35 Learning Development, Industry 4.0 Structure and Technology Adoption.

32 objectives is to connect human beings, machines and equipment in a large communication

26 reflexes in the deployment of Information Technology (IT). Currently, approximately 90% of

29 experimented a number of different ways of disseminating information, with the new

26 learning in the context of Industry 4.0.

22 Hannover Fair in 2011 in Germany.

39 [Table 3 – Insert here]

17 subject Learning in Industry 4.0 were identified in content analysis.

35 in the documents have been grouped.

22 3.2 Technology Adoption

43 printing, RFID, Augmented reality, Internet of Things, Cyber-physical systems, assistance

59 academic and professional qualification, whereby students are qualified to internalize

29 context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

43 perspective on teaching. The authors mention debriefing as an important aspect in creating

17 reports of learning experiences in Industry 4.0.

55 in Industry 4.0’s programs supporting on its Strategic establishment.

22 hands-on education, problem-based learning, simulation, and work-based learning.

29 interaction, knowledge interdisciplinary, and skills socio-technical. It provides a significant

26 Manufacturing Technology 66, pp. 803-826, available at:

35 institutions: a systematic review”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol.

43 Mapping digital technologies for supply chain management-marketing integration”,

59 Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance”, Journal of the Academy of

49 available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.016

29 perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.141, pp. 341-

52 Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N. and Tiwari, M. K. (2016) “Information technology

59 Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp. 214-221, available at:

26 Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 9, pp. 106-112, available at:

32 available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479810238215

35 “Vision, applications and future challenges of Internet of Things: A bibliometric study

52 Procedia Manufacturing, Vol.182, pp.466-473.

55 Muschard, B. and Seliger, G. (2015), “Realization of a learning environment to promote

29 Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 21-26, available at:

32 Prinz, C., Kreimeier, D. and Kuhlenkötter, B. (2017), “Implementation of a learning

35 159-166, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.004 (*)

43 empirical approach”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol.29 No.2,

52 manufacturing education: the teaching factory”, The 5th Conference on Learning

59 Kuhlenkötter, B. (2017), “Learning factories´ trainings as an enabler of proactive

29 Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 9-20. Available at:

46 available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.220 (*)

29 International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing

35 at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.027 (*)

39 Manufacturing 23, pp. 33-38, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.157

22 89-94, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.068 (*)

26 Quartely, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 8-23, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4132319

29 solution for defect prevention in a Learning Factory”, 7th Conference on Learning

35 Conference on Learning Factories. Procedia Manufacturing 23, pp. 141-146, available

39 innovations?”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management System,

46 available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.019 (*)

Learning and Industry 4.0 Learning and Industry 4.0 in

26 Result 50 proceedings and articles.

29 Findings (Dimensions of Findings (Dimensions of

Table 4 – First Construct: Industry 4.0 Structure

Constructive Alignment. Context Recognition. Cost-efficient Qualification.

Development. Optimization. Performance Management. Poka-Yoke. Shop

35 Changeable manufacturing systems. Closed loop material cycles. Digital

39 manufacturing. Lean. Low cost automation. Machine level. Manufacturing

43 and steering. Quality techniques of lean production. Scheduling.

49 Technology 3d printing. Assistance systems. Augmented reality. Automation. Cyber-

52 IoT. Raspberry pi. RFID.

55 Learnstrument. Lightweight design. Machine learning. Model scale.