Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

Industry 4.0 integration with socio-technical systems theory: A systematic

review and proposed theoretical model
Michael Sony a, *, Subhash Naik b
a
Namibia University of Science and Technology, 13 Jackson Kajeua Street, Windhoek, Windhoek, NA, 13388, Namibia
b
Suzlon Energy Ltd, General Manager Operations, Pune, Maharashtra, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Industry 4.0 promises the fourth industrial revolution by integration of cyber and physical worlds through
Industry 4.0 technology. Industry 4.0 implementation will result in human interaction with technical system in a specialised
Socio-technical systems theory manner. Therefore, Industry 4.0 will also be a socio (human related) and technical (nonhuman related) system in
Automation
pursuit of a common goal. The purpose of this study is to suggest a mechanism to include Socio-Technical
Behavioural operations management
Cyber-physical systems
Systems Theory perspective while designing architecture for integration while implementing Industry 4.0.
Building on the previous literatures on Socio-Technical Systems Theory and Industry 4.0, the article proposes
bringing the two approaches together and presents a framework for integration mechanism. Successful imple­
mentation of Industry 4.0 warrants vertical, horizontal and end-to-end integration. This study suggests a design
mechanism for three types of integration mechanism in Industry 4.0 by considering the socio-technical systems
impact on people, infrastructure, technology, processes, culture and goals. Further, the integration is also sug­
gested for analysis on the impact of stakeholders, economic situation and regulatory frameworks around which
the operating organizations are operating. This is the first paper to propose the consideration of Socio-Technical
Systems theory while designing the horizontal, vertical and end-to-end integration for sustainable imple­
mentation of Industry 4.0.

1. Introduction
Industry 4.0 promises a new wave of revolution in manufacturing
due to the new perspective on how manufacturing can conjoin with
advances in digitization to produce maximum output by using minimum
resources [1–3]. Initially introduced in Germany to take a pioneering
role in Industries, Industry 4.0 has symbolized the beginning of the
fourth industrial revolution [4,5]. Industry 4.0 is the current buzzword
and it utilizes technologies such as cyber-physical systems (CPS),
Internet of things (IoT) and cloud computing [6–9]. Industry 4.0 in­
tegrates the cyber world with the physical systems by using embedded
systems, semantic machine-to-machine communication, IoT and CPS.
This creates a smart factory to deal with the complexities of the modern
production system using a cyber-physical environment [5]. Industry 4.0
promises that the production and network connectivity are integrated
through CPS and IoT which makes Industry 4.0 a reality. The conven­
tional belief suggests that more degree of automation will result in less
human interaction or workerless production. However, the researchers
suggest that implementing Industry 4.0 will not reduce the human
interaction and employees will now require a different skill set [10–12].
The skill requirements will be more specialised [5]. Therefore, Industry
4.0 will be a socio-technical system [13] that contain social (human-­
related) and technical (non-human) aspects which will interact to pur­
sue a common goal. Consequently, Industry 4.0 systems are bound by
systems perspective and of course by the principles of open systems.
Hence, the aim of the design of the architecture for Industry 4.0 should
be based on adaptability in the face of external disturbances in the
environment. In the modern world of technological complexity,
distributed decision making, high-risk domains etc., the reductionist
approaches with assumptions of linearity and rationality are no longer
appropriate and will result in unsustainable design or analysis [14,15].
Socio-technical systems are social and technical aspects engaged in
goal-directed behaviour. Socio-technical systems theory is certain spe­
cific methods of joint optimization to design systems that display open
system properties and can thus cope better with the environmental
complexity, dynamism, new technology and competition [16]. Most of
the studies on Industry 4.0 have concentrated on the technical aspect of
the design of the architecture for integration for implementing Industry

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: emailofsony@gmail.com (M. Sony), ssnaik123@gmail.com (S. Naik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101248
Received 19 August 2019; Received in revised form 28 March 2020; Accepted 31 March 2020
Available online 7 April 2020
0160-791X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Sony and S. Naik
4.0 [17–20]. There have been studies suggesting the consideration of
socio-technical systems viewpoint while implementing Industry 4.0 [13,
21]. Technology, digitalisation and artificial intelligence are entwined
with social relations and therefore can result in the class struggle if
technical and social aspects are not given equal importance [13]. Davies
et al. [21] opinions that it is essential to have the well-defined technical
architecture to support Industry 4.0. However, the implementation
success and sustainability of the design will also rely on appreciating
socio-technical features aspects in the design. They also stress the ne­
cessity for future research on the socio-technical impact of Industry 4.0.
This study is primarily intended to fill the research gap and answer the
research question how can socio-technical systems theory be used to design a
sustainable architecture for integration in Industry 4.0? The systematic re­
view methodology is elucidated followed by the theoretical background.
2. Systematic review methodology
A systematic review is a research methodology to answer the specific
research question on a specific topic by identifying all relevant studies
and summarising the state of art. It is an overview of existing studies
which are relevant to a clearly formulated research question by using
standardised methods to identify the existing studies and critically
appraise relevant research and to collect, report and analyse data that
are included in the review [22]. It is a methodology which is explicit and
can be reproduced [23,24]. In order to provide comprehensive coverage
of the literature and to ensure compatibility of future studies we clas­
sified the studies in three major phases planning, executing and
Fig. 1. Systematic review methodology.
2
Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248
reporting these phases are depicted in Fig. 1.
2.1. Data sources
Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart [25] explicates that the first step in a
systematic review is the formulation of the research question. A research
question is a set of the synthetic proposition which is designed to capture
all publications within the specific domain, to obtain results which is
manageable within a set of resources [26,27]. The research question
should be synthesised into four concepts CIMO (C is the context: the
group/aspect of interest, I is the interventions: the intervention of in­
terest, M is the mechanisms that are triggered by the intervention, O is
the outcomes: the relevant outcomes).
Based on this our research question is framed as Context:
Manufacturing, Intervention: Socio-technical systems theory, Mecha­
nism: architecture design for three types of Industry 4.0 integration,
Outcome: Sustainable Industry 4.0 Implementation.
In order for the review to be comprehensive, all possible synonyms
are used to express each of the CIMO concepts. Only papers containing
CIMO concepts are used in this review.
The indicative search strings used were Industry 4.0, Socio-technical
systems theory, Industry 4.0 & Socio-technical systems theory, Industry 4.0
& Manufacturing & Socio-technical systems theory, Architecture design for
three types of Industry 4.0 integration, Socio-technical systems, Sustainable
Industry 4.0 Implementation etc.
The string was used in the database are: Web of Science, Science
Direct, Scopus, EBSCO, PROQUEST, IEEE Explore, Emerald, Taylor &
M. Sony and S. Naik Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248

Francis, Wiley, Google Scholar, Inderscience & JSTOR.
The search string was applied to all the fields available for each
database. For example, on title, abstract, keywords, and full text if
available. Journal papers, conference papers, book chapters, and
magazine articles if indexed by the selected databases were considered.
Another criterion was documents in English language were considered.
The starting date was not considered but the end date was July 2019.
2.2. Screening
This phase involved screening articles for review. A literature review
protocol based on Popay et al. [28] was developed to limit systematic

Fig. 2. Literature review protocol.

3
M. Sony and S. Naik
error and bias in the screening of papers for review. This protocol, which
summarized the scope, strategy, and data extraction method for the
review, is detailed in Fig. 2. The present research used the protocol to
obtain its final sample of articles. The first step was a broad search to
find abstracts that met the screening criteria, i.e. Industry 4.0,
Socio-technical systems theory, Industry 4.0 & Socio-technical systems the­
ory, Industry 4.0 & Manufacturing & Socio-technical systems theory, Ar­
chitecture design for three types of Industry 4.0 integration, Socio-technical
systems, Sustainable Industry 4.0 Implementation etc., in the title or ab­
stract of the article. If the articles are from Beall’s list [29,30] the article
was removed. The titles and abstracts were then analysed. This helped in
removing duplicates. The remaining abstracts were screened using the
inclusion/exclusion criteria stated earlier. The full articles were then
read to meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The reference list of arti­
cles was read to further improve the search criteria. The initial results
yielded 302 papers subsequently, analysis of the title of each paper and
abstract yielded 125 papers. After reading the full text reason-based
elimination was conducted in terms of CIMO framework and the final
sample consisted on 74 papers. The total number of articles that came up
initially and a breakdown of each stage is given in Fig. 1.
2.3. Data analysis
Before the data analysis phase began, the primary research objectives
were delineated. It was followed by clearly demarking the conceptual
boundaries for this study as depicted in Fig. 2. As the primary goal of this
research was to how can socio-technical systems theory be used to
design a sustainable architecture for integration in Industry 4.0. The
Industry 4.0 & socio-technical systems theory articles were identified
and it was decided to identify the patterns, directions, similarities, and
differences in Industry 4.0 implementation within the sampled articles
[31–34]. Seventy-four articles were extracted after review considering
the research objective of the study. The list of articles is depicted in the
data set Mendeley. https://doi.org/10.17632/rhw8gn2xbx.1.
These papers were printed by both the authors. These articles were
analysed and the themes of criticisms which emerged from the analysis.
The information was marked into categories in respective papers using a
pencil by each author independently. In the next phase, both authors
discussed the themes. Simple percentage agreement was calculated, and
it was found to be 85%. Wherever disagreement arose each author dis­
cussed the viewpoints and consensus obtained. This is consistent with
standard practice [35].
3. Theoretical background
3.1. Industry 4.0
The manufacturing industry is taken over by a recent trend in
automation technologies. CPS, IoT,Cloud Computing, Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), and social
product development [7,9,36–42] are the main technologies in
manufacturing which are assisting Industry 4.0. CPS based production
based on big data and integration of physical with virtual systems is the
main facet of Industry 4.0 [9,43]. CPS results in an agile, dynamic and
flexible production process which is triggered as per the customer’s
needs. Also, it improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the complete
organization by optimum use of resources of production to produce
maximum output by the elimination of waste in the production process
through strategic digitization and control of resources. It is a techno­
logical evolution from the erstwhile embedded systems to CPS to con­
nect the virtual world, with the physical world through technological
concepts such as embedded systems, semantic machine to machine
communication, IoT and CPS [5]. Due ever-changing customer needs the
modern-day industrial systems should be capable deal with the
complexity of the production process, by being agile and flexible, smart,
intelligent, self-regulating and self-configuring [44]. The integration of
4
Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248
the cyber and physical systems is commonly known as the smart factory
creating an environment where the production systems such as ma­
chinery and equipment are interconnected digitally through automa­
tion, self-optimization and self-regulation [2]. The advantages of smart
factory extend beyond just the physical production of goods and ser­
vices. The management functions such as planning, organization, con­
trolling, delegating, coordinating, forecasting etc. are also automated by
virtue of automation technologies. Supply chain management, product
development, maintenance, energy management etc are also benefitted
through automation technologies. Thus, we are on the brink of a fourth
industrial revolution, wherein the world of production and network
connectivity are connected through IoT and CPS to make the dream of
Industry 4.0 a reality [5,45]. The previous studies suggest that even
full-fledged implementation of Industry 4.0 will not reduce the human
element within the system, rather the employees will now require a
different skill set [10–12]. The principles of Industry 4.0 are based on
the are three kinds of integration. The horizontal integration, vertical
integration and end-to-end engineering integration [46]. Horizontal
Integration is the integration of value networks to enable collaboration
between corporations or organizations in the value chain [47]. When
more than one organization cooperates to deliver superior products and
services, the organization becomes successful [48]. The horizontal
integration of participating organizations in the value chain through
digitization, a new efficient, self-regulating, self-optimizing, digitized
and self-evolving ecosystem is created [2]. Vertical integration is the
integration of various hierarchical sub-systems within the organization
to create a flexible, agile, efficient and reconfigurable manufacturing
system within the organization. The end-to-end engineering integration
results in integration which enables the creation of customized products
and services across the value chain [49]. In a product-centred or product
lifecycle value creation process, a chain of activities is involved. To cite
an example the need analysis, product design and development, pro­
duction, services, maintenance and recycling. The proper usage software
tools these phases can be integrated to create customized, automated,
self-organized product and services as per the customer requirement
[46,50]. In a nutshell Industry 4.0 is transforming the design, engi­
neering, manufacturing, operation and maintenance of production sys­
tems. In terms of social perspectives in some countries the employee
demographics are changing and there is a lot of ageing population [51].
Thus, there is a need for Industry 4.0 systems to bring in the inclusivity
of all types of workers in the smart factories especially in terms of being
proficient in assisting the ageing, disabled and other disadvantaged
workers. Industry 4.0 can be socially sustainable if organizations will
accompany its technological transformations with training and devel­
opment programs for their workforce [52]. Thus, there is a need for
human elements working in tandem with the technical systems for the
success of Industry 4.0.
3.2. Socio-technical systems theory
Modern-day organizations are complex and must be studied in to­
tality. Complexity science has been used to study complex systems [53].
Complexity science represents a new shift in thinking compared to
reductionist thinking. It assumes that the system can be understood from
its interactions between the various parts of the system. The ontology is
focused on the abstract interactions between various elements. To cite
an example, it would be the abstract interaction of people, processes and
technologies that interact to produce products and services. However,
just studying the internal elements such as tool and machine that
transform only inputs to outputs will not give a holistic view of the
system [54]. The socio-technical thinking was a by-product of a study by
UK Tavistock Institute on the coal mining machinery, which resulted in
the interrelated nature of technology and society [55]. The introduction
of new machinery without taking into consideration the behavioural
issues will result in sociological complications in the workplace.
Therefore, during the design and implementation of the technologies,
M. Sony and S. Naik
there is a need for consideration of behavioural issues. Such a thinking
led to socio-technical theory [56–59]. The thinking that design is sys­
temic and it calls for consideration of both the social and technical
factors while implementing new technology or business change within
the organization [60,61]. This is important because the organization is
composed of various interdependent subparts which come together in a
complex manner to create a performance [14,15]. Designing or chang­
ing one part of the system without considering the effect on the other
part will result in systems which will limit the effectiveness [57,62].
Socio-technical systems theory has achieved success in the design of new
technologies and design-led change [61,63–68]. Besides, the impact on
technology socio-technical systems theory will also have an impact on
the manner organizations are designed. It also affects the manner jobs
are designed or work is organized. The redesign of work has helped in
the effectiveness of both the employees and the systems. To cite a
prominent example of allowing employees to solve problems at the
source results in outcomes like productivity, motivation and well-being
[69]; Grant, [70]. Some of the other areas where socio-technical systems
are used are 1) accident analysis and causation [71] 2) systems theoretic
accident modelling [72] and 3) Accimap [73]. To summarize, the
socio-technical systems theory has been applied to several key domains,
in addition to the design of new technologies and redesign of work roles.
It has resulted in both practical impact and theoretical refinements in
the design and operation of systems which are socio-technical in nature.
3.3. Socio-technical systems framework
The socio-technical systems theory proclaims the importance of so­
cial and technical factors which should be considered for the design. It
considers that a change in one part of the system will result in the
changes in the other part of the system. Therefore, to optimize all the
parts of the systems should be considered together. Industry 4.0 is pre­
dominant with technology such as connectivity and interaction tech­
nology such as smart products, smart machines and smart operators.
This causes a rethinking of relationships between human and machine.
This interaction is a critical relationship which will be governed by
socio-technical transformation. An implementation of CPS in production
and the development and use of system-based information management
has led to organizations characterised by human-automation symbiosis,
where machines cooperate with humans. These systems are designed not
to replace the skills of humans rather assist human to be more efficient
and effective [52,74]. Three types of enhancing capability are (1)
Automation Aiding for Enhanced Physical Capabilities (2) Automation
Aiding for Enhanced Sensing Capabilities and (3) Automation Aiding for
Enhanced Cognitive Capabilities [52]. One of the most widely used
framework to consider the changes in the system socio-technically is
proposed by Leavitt [75]. It was subsequently used by many others
[76–79]. The initial framework developed by Leavitt had four di­
mensions. The dimensions were people, task, structure and technologies.
Subsequently, the framework was modified into a six-dimensional
hexagon interrelated structure [58,80]. The six dimensions are 1) Peo­
ple 2) Infrastructure 3) Technology 4) Culture 5) Process/procedures 6)
Goals.
In Industry 4.0 the Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), which are com­
puters with networks of small sensors and actuators that are installed as
embedded systems in materials, equipment and machines and connected
via the Internet [8]. CPSs combine the physical with the real world, by
collecting and exchanging data over the Internet under the term of
“Internet of Things” [81].The implementation of CPS in production and
the development system and use of a system based on information
management to create organizations which are led by
human-automation symbiosis to create a set of goal and metrics on
which the system will work autonomously. The production systems will
not be designed to replace the skills and capabilities of humans, but to
assist humans in being more efficient and effective. Therefore, the pro­
duction system will have to consider varied skills and abilities of humans
5
Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248
found in the organization for effective design of systems. Industry 4.0
uses a wide range of new connectivity and interaction technologies, like
smart products, smart machines and smart operators which will vary
depending on the technologies adopted by the organizations. Industry
4.0 systems will be within a physical infrastructure, operating with a set
of cultural assumptions prevalent in the organization, by using sets of
processes and working practices. Besides, the Industry 4.0 systems will
ultimately sit within a large context of the regulatory framework, a set of
stakeholders and an economic and financial environment. This schema
is a simple and powerful analysis of the inter-dependent nature of
various elements that exist within in and outside the organization. Fig. 3
depicts the framework for the analysis of a socio-Technical system.
Unlike other socio-technical methods such as Human Factors Analysis
and Classification System (HFACS), Accimap and Systems Theoretic
Accident Modelling and Process model (STAMP), this method is more
generic offers a flexible alternative that may be applied to a range of
domains and problems and therefore is applicable to study complex
interdependent systems in a simplified manner [58].
4. Integration of Socio-Technical Systems Theory and Industry
4.0
Industry 4.0 is a socio-technical system. For the successful and sus­
tainable implementation of Industry 4.0, the joint optimization of Socio-
technical systems is desired. Therefore, while implementing the inte­
gration architecture for Industry 4.0, the socio-technical systems theory
should be included in every phase of integration. With this principle in
the backdrop, the proposed framework on socio-technical systems the­
ory and Industry 4.0 is constructed as shown in Fig. 4. The design of
vertical, horizontal and end-to-end integration is examined with respect
to the six principles of socio-technical systems theory. In addition, each
of the integration design has also to be investigated with the environ­
ment existing around the integration system such as economic and
financial situation, the regulatory frameworks and stakeholders.
4.1. Designing vertical integration through socio-technical systems
perspective
The vertical integration is the creation of flexible and reconfigurable
manufacturing system by integrating various hierarchical elements
within the organization through digitization during the implementation
of Industry 4.0 [46,47]. The integration of hierarchal sub-systems within
the organization must be a well-thought integration policy to achieve
the strategic goals of the organization. Socio-technical systems theory
can be used as a guideline to design the integration strategy. The vertical
subsystems within an organization interact with each other to meet the
organizational goals. The organization ability to attain the existing goals
and also pursue new goals will be possible through strategic vertical
integration [82]. Moreover, the departmental sub-goals within the or­
ganization will also have to be strategically aligned with the main goal
through a vertical integration strategy [83]. The goal of the organization
strategy for designing the vertical integration strategy should also
accommodate the stakeholders and follow the regulatory frameworks.
This is important because stakeholder’s interest should be protected in
this integration. Also, vertical integration should not be designed against
the regulatory frameworks under which the firm operates. By aligning
the organization goals with the financial or economic circumstances
within which the organization operates lead to financial performance
[58]. The changing customer needs are met strategically by imple­
menting Industry 4.0. Vertical integration strategy can be deployed to
meet the customer needs by making optimum use of the resources [42].
The integration of smart production systems with other functional
business subsystems of the organization will create a need for smart
infrastructure in terms of digital networks, sensors, networking products
and services such as software’s, routers, modems, control units etc [84].
The acquisition of infrastructure for vertical integration will also have to
M. Sony and S. Naik Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248

Fig. 3. Socio -technical system adapted from [58].

Fig. 4. Socio-technical perspectives in industry 4.0 framework.

be strategically considered. The absence of a strategy for vertical inte­
gration will result in huge spending of financial resources without
attaining the intended objective. The acquisition strategy for the infra­
structure for vertical integration of the organization will have to be
aligned to the organizational goals, human resource strategy, technol­
ogy, culture and procedures or processes within the organization. The
technology for vertical integration within the organization is a vital
component which will bind the various subsystems within an organi­
zation to achieve the organizational goals [7]. The technology for
implementing Industry 4.0 will range from data collection, analysis,
decision making, self-regulation, networking, reporting, integration
with cyber-physical systems, controlling, organizing etc. Consequently,
the organization should have an appropriate technology management
strategy [85] for vertical integration. The technology management
strategy should consider the unique technological needs of each orga­
nization while designing the technology management models for verti­
cal integration. The technology used in vertical integration must be
strategically acquired and deployed. The orientation of technology
management strategy with the organizational goals, infrastructure,
culture, processes and people should be judiciously carried out. Besides,
the technology management strategy for vertical integration will also
have to consider the financial/economic circumstances where in the
firm is operating. To cite an example for an underdeveloped country the
vertical integration strategy should also include some indigenous tech­
nological elements. Such orientation will reduce the cost and help to
gain the technological advantage for creating competitive advantage

6
M. Sony and S. Naik
through vertical integration. The technology management strategy must
also consider various stakeholders and regulatory frameworks within
which the organization is operating for creating a sustainable advantage
through vertical integration. Every organization is guided by its culture
and values [86]. During the implementation of vertical integration,
various subsystems within an organization are conglomerated virtually.
Therefore, the organization becomes one entity at the virtual level,
resulting in commonality in terms of organizational culture. To cite an
example, if a centralized organization and after vertical integration
becomes decentralized, the organization culture should also change.
Nevertheless, changing organizational culture is a gradual process and
therefore, while vertically integrating various subsystems the organi­
zation should consider the impact it will have on culture and manage it
in a strategically [87]. The place where the organization is operating
will have a dominant role to play in this regard. To cite an example
organization in the east and west will respond differently to changes
happening in the organization due to vertical integration. The different
response patterns will be due to the inherent cultural differences [88].
The vertical integration within the organization will result in all the
processes being a networked self-regulating entity. To cite an example
the material parts can be tracked on a real-time basis by various sub­
systems within the organization or the processing stages of products and
services are logged on a real-time basis and any discrepancies will be
removed on a real-time basis [19]. Such a radical change in the proce­
dural aspects of the process within an organization will warrant rede­
signing the business processes by considering the dynamics of vertical
integration on the people, infrastructure, technology, culture and goals.
Furthermore, the process redesign for vertical integration will also be
influenced by the financial circumstances in which the firm operates. To
cite an example process redesign is costly and during challenging
financial circumstances it should be carefully implemented to meet the
financial objectives [89]. Additionally, the regulatory frameworks and
stakeholders will also influence the process design. In countries where
the labour union are strong while redesigning processes, which are
self-regulating and autonomous, the impact on the labour unrest and
trade union issues, due to vertical integration will also have to be crit­
ically studied. Appropriate strategy will have to designed to take care of
such situations. The vertical integration of subsystems within the orga­
nizations will result in better utilization of resources [49]. The efficient
use of resources such as people resource will result in new challenges
[90]. To cite an example there will be a reshuffling of employees among
departments so that they can be deployed and used in an optimum
possible combination. Another example would be the cross-training of
workers in different subsystems so that they can be compatible any­
where. Therefore, the employees will be required to acquire new skills
and constant updating of existing skills. The human resource strategy
will also be interlinked to the technology, culture, processes, goals and
infrastructure, to design the optimum use of human skills.
4.2. Designing horizontal integration through socio-technical systems
perspective
The modern-day organization requires cooperation between various
organizations in the supply chain to create value for the customer [91].
The supply chain for an organization is the group of organizations that
are involved, through upstream and downstream linkages, in the
different processes and activities that produce value in the form of
products and services delivered to the ultimate consumer [92]. In hor­
izontal integration, all the organizations which participate in the value
chain must play a role to meet the customer needs. The digitization of
the entire supply chain will lead to improved benefits for the organi­
zation as well as for the customers [93]. Due to the implementation of
Industry 4.0, many new innovative business models are feasible and
practically possible to be implemented in the marketplace to add value
to the customer and also create a competitive advantage [36,94]. To cite
an example tracking of customer orders all along the supply chain by the
7
Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248
customer is a feature which will add value to the customer in terms of
last-minute orders, also, it will result in the personalization of products
and services. Quality will now be the responsibility of the entire supply
chain and with sensors monitoring the quality characteristics of interest,
it will be very difficult for a poor-quality product reaching the customer
[47]. Every organization has its own individual goals and strategies.
While designing the horizontal integration the goals of each partici­
pating organization must be aligned to the value which is added to the
customer due to the collaboration [95]. The goals for horizontal inte­
gration cannot be designed in isolation rather it has to be designed with
respect to the infrastructure, technology, culture, processes and people
within the participating organization. The participating organizations
should also link the goals with the financial situation within which the
supply chain operates. To cite an example during recession organiza­
tions, look for better ways to control their cost and develop new capa­
bilities across the global supply chains. Therefore, all the participating
organizations should have to collaborate on the common goals and
horizontal integration mechanism will be a great tool for the unification
of goals. However, the common goals will have to follow the regulatory
frameworks. Likewise, the common goals should not be detrimental to
any of the stakeholders in the supply chain. In the event of any stake­
holder’s interest getting incapacitated, the unification of goals across the
horizontal supply chain will be a major problem. The digital infra­
structure required for the digitizing the entire supply chain must stra­
tegically acquire and deployed. The degree of digitization of the
participating organization may vary by the organization [96,97].
Therefore, the initial cost and other resources required will also be
different. The resources for horizontal integration will have to be ac­
quired and deployed based on the technology, culture, processes, goals
and people within each participating organization. The success of
acquiring and deploying infrastructure will also depend upon regulatory
frameworks within which the supply chain operates. The technology
required for horizontal integration cannot be acquired and implemented
in isolation without considering each participating organization infra­
structure, people, culture, processes and goals. The technology man­
agement strategy for horizontal integration should be common across all
the participating organization in the supply chain [98]. A change in
technology management by anyone of the organizations will derail the
process of horizontal integration. Horizontal integration brings together
organizations of different cultures. There is a profound impact of orga­
nization culture on its supply chain [99]. Horizontal integration brings
together organizations of different culture in the supply chain to create
value for the customer and individual organization [100]. Therefore,
cultural issues within participating if not handled can disrupt the hori­
zontal integration mechanism. The horizontal integration also results in
the integration of different processes within the participating organi­
zation. The tight coupling of the processes in horizontal integration
should also consider the infrastructure, people, technology, culture and
goals of each participating organization. The integration mechanism
must be meticulously designed without injuring the interest of stake­
holders. The horizontal integration should also consider human re­
sources within each participating organization. Due to the horizontal
integration, new skills will have acquired by people in the participating
organization [90]. The new skills required in the horizontal integration
should also have to be considered in tandem with the technology,
infrastructure, culture, processes and goals within each participating
organization.
4.3. Designing end-to-end engineering integration through socio-technical
systems perspective
Product and services are important elements for the success of In­
dustry 4.0 [82,101]. The concept of the smart factory under Industry 4.0
is facilitating the automated, flexible, efficient production that can be
realized if the products and services are compatible for this unification
[102]. The digital amalgamation of each stage of products life cycle
M. Sony and S. Naik
enables new synergies and opportunities to optimize engineering the
products and services along the entire value chain of the product [6].
The product because it is smart can store information about themselves
in terms of manufacturing, preceding operation, sub-seeding operation,
the current state, circuit diagram or plan, assembly information, auto­
matic path etc. [47]. The cyber-physical system thus covers every aspect
from customer requirements to product architecture and manufacturing
of the finished product. The end-to-end design mechanism intends to
close the gap between product design and development. It is done
through the advances in production planning, production engineering,
production and other related services [103]. End-to- end integration
main goal is to add value across all stages of the product life cycle. To
create end-to-end integration the entire process must be mapped. From
customer requirements to product architecture and production. In a
traditional system of manufacturing, customers can choose a pre­
determined range of products. In end-to-end integration, everything is
integrated from customer requirements to product architecture and
manufacture using cyber-physical systems. Product design and devel­
opment, production planning, production engineering, production,
services, customer needs are all integrated into the value chain in an
end-to-end configuration. Therefore, such a system will enable the
customer to design customized products and services [6]. The organi­
zation goals must be redesigned for end-to-end integration of products
and services. From the organization goal of offering predetermined
product specification, to customized products is a radical change in the
organization goals. End-to-end integration will also need to acquire new
infrastructure and technology. The technology management in the
end-to-end integration will have to focus on the entire stage of the
product life cycle. In other words, cradle to grave thinking for product
and services. The processes will have to be smarter to add value across
the entire value. Consequently, the total digitalisation of the end-to-end
value chain will need the processes to be faster and more responsive to
the needs of the preceding and sub-seeding ends. The end-to-end inte­
gration to be successful various subsystems within and external to the
organization will collaborate strategically. A strategy for the envisioned
cultural change required within various subsystems due to the
end-to-end integration will also have to be considered for the success.
The people skills due to end-to-end integration will have to be updated
and trained. To cite an example a person working in the production
department in addition to the manufacturing skills of products will have
to understand the algorithm which links the end of the value chain in a
strategic manner. The impact of end-to-end on people, infrastructure,
technology, culture, processes and goals are interdependent. This cre­
ates a holistic interdependency among these factors which should be
strategically analysed during the vertical integration. In addition, the
end-to-end integration should be in consonance with the needs of all the
stakeholders in the value chain. The care must be taken while designing
the value chain else, end-to-end integration will run into a failure.
4.4. Meta-integration of vertical, horizontal and end-to-end integration
The meta-integration of vertical, horizontal and end-to-end inte­
gration is aimed at the creation of flexible and reconfigurable
manufacturing system by integrating various hierarchical elements
within the organization, as well across the value chain by the integration
of all other participating organization by creating integration at each
stage of the products life cycle [6,47]. The integration of all three types
of integration should be a well-thought integration policy to achieve
strategic goals of the organization by considering financial circum­
stances around which the organization operates, major stakeholder of
the organization and regulatory frameworks which the organization has
to abide to do business [21]. For the success of Industry 4.0 initiatives,
all the three types of integration should be implemented fully, and equal
weightage should be given to all the three dimensions. The interaction of
vertical, horizontal and end-to-end integration should be further
considered with respect to goals of the organization, people,
8
Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248
infrastructure, technology, culture and processes/procedures of the or­
ganization. The meta-integration should further consider how the sys­
tem of the system will work in a self-directed and autonomous manner to
meet the organizational goals by considering its impact on people,
infrastructure, technology, culture, & processes/procedures. In addi­
tion, the goal of the organization strategy for designing the
meta-integration strategy should also accommodate the stakeholders,
follow the regulatory frameworks and by taking into consideration the
economic environment. The stakeholder’s interest would be the most
important factor which should be considered in this integration. The
customer needs should be the focal point on which these three types of
integration should work as a system of system. Throughout all the
phases of the life cycle of product, the vertical and horizontal integration
should result in better translation of customer needs into products and
services. The meta-integration should also be carried out to align the
organizational goals with the financial or economic circumstances
within which the organization should create a financial performance.
The acquisition strategy for the infrastructure for the meta-integration of
the organization will have to be aligned to the organizational goals,
human resource strategy, technology, culture and procedures or pro­
cesses within the organization.
5. Discussion & implication for practice
The purpose of this paper is to design a vertical, horizontal and end-
to-end integration of Industry 4.0, by incorporating the socio-technical
perspectives, while designing the integration. The dominant principle
of our work is that socio-technical perspective can be used as a philo­
sophical guideline for the design of architecture for the horizontal,
vertical and end-to-end engineering integration for sustainable imple­
mentation of Industry 4.0 within the organization. So far, there are few
scholars who have examined the socio-technical perspectives in Industry
4.0 [13,21,104], There has been no study on the use of socio-technical
perspectives to design the architecture for vertical, horizontal and
end-to-end integration for Industry 4.0, as these the main tenets of In­
dustry 4.0 [105]. The design of vertical integration architecture for
various subsystems within an organization leads to integration of field,
control, production, operational and enterprise planning level. In other
words, it is the integration of all the subsystems within the organization
to attain the organizational vision and mission [49,106,107]. Such an
integration will naturally be an open system which has a combination of
the socio-technical element which will work in tandem to perform in the
desired objectives of vertical integration. These open systems of vertical
integration will adapt to the changes in the external environment to
maintain the steady state. The socio - technical element will engage in a
goal-directed behaviour to achieve the vertical integration of sub sys­
tems within the organization. The interaction of social - technical sys­
tems will create a joint optimization within various subsystems within
the organization, as opposed to either technical or social elements.
Therefore, while designing the socio-technical architecture of vertical
integration, social principles such as the impact on people, infrastruc­
ture, technology, processes, culture and organization goal must be
considered. The vertical integration will usually have a set of goals and
metrics within the organization. The employees with varying attitudes
and skills interact with technical systems within the organization. The
technological components such as CPS, IoT, Service orientation, Big
data, cloud computing, customization along within a physical infra­
structure, operating with a set of cultural assumptions, and using sets of
processes and working practices. These five factors are interdependent
and interact with each other within the organization. Special care must
be taken while designing the vertical integration to consider the inter­
action factors. The vertical integration system should also be considered
within a wider context, incorporating a regulatory framework, sets of
stakeholders, and an economic/financial environment. A self-regulating
component of vertical integration within the organization should further
track the evolving nature of need of the subsystems. Such a mechanism
M. Sony and S. Naik
will bring in balance within the technical and social subsystems to
maintain a steady state condition within the vertical integration. The
horizontal integration is the digitization of full value and supply chain
[105]. The interconnection of all participating member in the value and
supply chain results in information exchange taking centre stage for the
sustainability of the value or supply chain. The partners, suppliers,
customers and other ecosystem members, from logistics to innovation
are integrated horizontally [46,49,108]. Therefore, horizontal integra­
tion is a combination of social - technical systems within the partici­
pating value chain needing a joint optimization strategy. Accordingly,
while designing the architecture for horizontal integration, the impact
must be analysed by considering people, infrastructure, technology,
processes, culture, organization goals, economic situation around the
value and supply chain, regulatory frameworks and stakeholder’s in­
terests [58]. The design of both the social and technical system for
horizontal configuration must be done simultaneously within the value
of all a participating organization. Therefore, while designing the ar­
chitecture for horizontal integration, should be considered in corre­
spondingly in the entire value chain. More orientation towards one and
neglect towards others will not create an open system of horizontal
integration which reacts to the needs of the participating organizations
in the value and supply chain. The value chain to be a success, there
should cooperation and coordination between the participating orga­
nizations to achieve a common goal through horizontal integration. The
needs of the participating members within the value and supply chain
are continuously evolving [109], therefore horizontal integration
frameworks must be designed to be self-adapting to maintain the
socio-technical balance. The information system design within the
participating subsystems in the value chain should be designed to pro­
duce useful, meaningful and effects based [96], so that each partici­
pating subsystem within the value chain will be able to see the whole
picture. The end goals of the participating subsystems within
value-chain should be agreed upon rather than the means, therefore,
technology should be customizable by each horizontal subsystem based
on the needs. The horizontal integration should be in congruence with
the existing arrangement of integration. The horizontal integration ar­
chitecture should be co-evolving based on the participating members
within the horizontal integration by considering the impact on partici­
pating organization in terms of people, infrastructure, technology, pro­
cesses, culture, organization goals, economic situation around the value
and supply chain, regulatory frameworks and stakeholder’s interests.
The end-to-end integration the product lifecycle from cradle to grave
is integrated in a digitalised manner. Such an opportunity results in the
design of customised products and services based on the life cycle data
[46,49,50]. Designing of end-to-end integration is an open system with a
combination of social-technical systems working in goal directed
manner to reach the objective throughout the product lifecycle. Conse­
quently, the end-to-end integration must be optimised simultaneously in
a socially and technically throughout the product lifecycle. The influ­
ence of technical aspects of end-to-end integration must be designed and
analysed throughout the product life cycle for the impact on people,
technology, processes, infrastructure, culture and goals. The end-to-end
integration also must be designed by considering the need for adapt­
ability and change as the system evolves as per the stakeholders or
participating subsystems needs. A rigid design may not result in a bal­
ance between social and technical elements. The users of end-to-end
integration, while using will discover important needs for its usage.
The self-regulating and evolving algorithm should have the capability to
consider the social needs of the stakeholders in end-to-end integration.
The meta-integration of vertical, horizontal and end-to-end integration
will also have to be designed as a collection of task-oriented or dedicated
systems that pool their resources and capabilities together to create an
Industry 4.0 system, which will be a more complex system which offers
more functionality and performance than simply the sum of the vertical,
horizontal and end-to-end integration [13,104]. Further, the
meta-integration must ultimately contribute to the evolution of the
9
Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248
social – technical systems which considers people, infrastructure, tech­
nology, processes, culture, organization goals, economic situation
around the value and supply chain, regulatory frameworks and stake­
holder’s interests. The meta-integration, therefore, should design a de­
cision support system through the above socio-technical framework so
that inherent individual problems of managing and decision making
vertical, horizontal and end-to-end integration shall be overcome with
the meta-integration.
6. Conclusion, limitation and scope of future work
The fourth industrial revolution has resulted in Industry 4.0 being
implemented by leading organizations. There is a general agreement
that for Industry 4.0 to be sustainable, the social and technical elements
should be considered in tandem. In this study, an attempt is made to
design the architecture of vertical, horizontal and end-to-end integration
by considering the principles of socio-technical systems theory. In
addition, the meta-integration should be revolving around this frame­
work so that individual issues of management and decision making
within vertical, horizontal and end-to-end integration can be managed.
This is a generic framework as such it can be applied to any industry and
organization. Tangible sustainable benefits could be attained by incor­
porating the principles of socio-technical systems theory while designing
the integration architecture. The main contribution of this work is the
novelty of the design of the architecture of Industry 4.0 by considering
socio-technical systems theory. Most of the existing design architecture
for integration of vertical, horizontal and end-to-end integration con­
siders techno-economical aspects of design. However, for an open sys­
tem such as Industry 4.0, to be successful there should be equal
consideration of socio-technical perspectives. The academicians and
professionals will benefit from this study as it provides a different
perspective from existing literature. The guiding framework will help in
designing integration strategies while implementing Industry 4.0.
The major limitation of this study is that the principles of integration
of socio-technical systems theory and principles of Industry 4.0 are
considered at a theoretical level. Considering the immature state at
which the concept of Industry 4.0 [110], this study will enlarge the body
of knowledge on the designing integration framework for Industry 4.0.
Future studies should explore using case studies the framework of
considering socio-technical design while designing the architecture for
Industry 4.0. Case studies are important here as it can capture all the
variables of interest especially when it comes to designing the archi­
tecture for Industry 4.0. Besides, a longitudinal perspective on the
importance of Socio-technical systems theory on Industry 4.0 could also
be studied. To explore the differences among the sectors, multi-sectoral
study and comparisons may also be carried out for categorising the re­
lationships. The applicability of existing socio-technical design princi­
ples for Industry 4.0 integration is also an important area of inquiry.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Michael Sony: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Writing - review & editing. Subhash Naik: Conceptualization, Meth­
odology, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgement
We thank the reviewers for the constructive comments which has
improved the quality of the paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101248.
M. Sony and S. Naik Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248

References [33] L.A. Burke, H.M. Hutchins, Training Transfer: an Integrative Literature Review’,
Human Resource Development Review, vol. 6, Sage Publications Sage CA, Los
Angeles, CA, 2007, pp. 263–296, 3.
[1] S.S. Kamble, A. Gunasekaran, S.A. Gawankar, Sustainable Industry 4.0
[34] K.B. Smith, J. Profetto-McGrath, G.G. Cummings, Emotional intelligence and
Framework: A Systematic Literature Review Identifying the Current Trends and
nursing: an integrative literature review, Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 46 (12) (2009)
Future Perspectives’, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 117,
1624–1636. Elsevier.
Elsevier, 2018, pp. 408–425.
[35] C.B. Jarvis, S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff, A critical review of construct
[2] M. Sony, Industry 4.0 and lean management: a proposed integration model and
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer
research propositions, Prod. Manufactur. Res. 6 (1) (2018) 416–432. Taylor &
research, J. Consum. Res. 30 (2) (2003) 199–218. Oxford University Press.
Francis.
[36] G. Kube, T. Rinn, Industry 4.0-The Next Revolution in the Industrial Sector’.
[3] M. Sony, S. Naik, Critical factors for the successful implementation of Industry
BAUVERLAG BV GMBH AVENWEDDER STR 55, GUTERSLOH, GERMANY, 2014,
4.0: a review and future research direction, Prod. Plann. Contr. (2019) 1–17.
p. 33311.
Taylor & Francis.
[37] C. Baur, D. Wee, Manufacturing’s Next Act, McKinsey Quarterly, Jun, 2015.
[4] K. Alexopoulos, et al., A concept for context-aware computing in manufacturing:
[38] P. Singer, Are You Ready for Industry 4.0? EXTENSION MEDIA 1786 18TH
the white goods case, Int. J. Comput. Integrated Manuf. 29 (8) (2016) 839–849.
STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, 2015. CA 94107 USA.
Taylor & Francis.
[39] D. Georgakopoulos, et al., ‘Internet of Things and edge cloud computing roadmap
[5] L. Da Xu, E.L. Xu, L. Li, Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends, Int. J. Prod.
for manufacturing’, IEEE Cloud Comp. IEEE 3 (4) (2016) 66–73.
Res. 56 (8) (2018) 2941–2962. Taylor & Francis.
[40] F. Lin, et al., Autonomous channel switching: towards efficient spectrum sharing
[6] H. Kagermann, et al., Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative
for industrial wireless sensor networks, IEEE Internet Things J. 3 (2) (2016)
INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the Future of German Manufacturing Industry; Final
231–243. IEEE.
Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group, Forschungsunion, 2013.
[41] M. Lom, O. Pribyl, M. Svitek, Industry 4.0 as a part of smart cities, in: Smart Cities
[7] H. Lasi, et al., Industry 4.0, Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 6,
Symposium Prague (SCSP), 2016, IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6.
Springer, 2014, pp. 239–242, 4.
[42] L.M. Fonseca, Industry 4.0 and the digital society: concepts, dimensions and
[8] H. Kagermann, ‘Change through digitization—value creation in the age of
envisioned benefits, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Business
Industry 4.0’, in: Management of Permanent Change, Springer, 2015, pp. 23–45.
Excellence, 2018, pp. 386–397. Sciendo.
[9] Y. Lu, Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications and open research
[43] S. Zanero, Cyber-physical systems, Computer 50 (4) (2017) 14–16. IEEE.
issues, J. Ind. Inform. Integr. 6 (2017) 1–10. Elsevier.
[44] W. MacDougall, Industrie 4.0: Smart Manufacturing for the Future, Germany
[10] B. Dworschak, H. Zaiser, Competences for cyber-physical systems in
Trade & Invest, 2014.
manufacturing–first findings and scenarios, Procedia CIRP 25 (2014) 345–350.
[45] A. Moeuf, et al., The industrial management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0,
Elsevier.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (3) (2018) 1118–1136. Taylor & Francis.
[11] S. Weyer, et al., Towards Industry 4.0-Standardization as the crucial challenge for
[46] S. Wang, J. Wan, D. Li, et al., Implementing smart factory of industrie 4.0: an
highly modular, multi-vendor production systems, Ifac-Papersonline 48 (3)
outlook, Int. J. Distributed Sens. Netw. 12 (1) (2016) 3159805. SAGE
(2015) 579–584. Elsevier.
Publications Sage UK: London, England.
[12] F. Hecklau, et al., Holistic approach for human resource management in Industry
[47] H. Foidl, M. Felderer, Research challenges of industry 4.0 for quality
4.0, Procedia CIRP 54 (2016) 1–6. Elsevier.
management, in: International Conference on Enterprise Resource Planning
[13] J. Avis, Socio-technical imaginary of the fourth industrial revolution and its
Systems, Springer, 2015, pp. 121–137.
implications for vocational education and training: a literature review, J. Vocat.
[48] S. Sindi, M. Roe, The evolution of supply chains and logistics, in: Strategic Supply
Educ. Train. 70 (3) (2018) 337–363. Taylor & Francis.
Chain Management, Springer, 2017, pp. 7–25.
[14] G.H. Walker, et al., Translating concepts of complexity to the field of ergonomics,
[49] T. Stock, G. Seliger, Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in industry 4.0,
Ergonomics 53 (10) (2010) 1175–1186. Taylor & Francis.
Procedia Cirp 40 (2016) 536–541. Elsevier.
[15] S. Dekker, Drift into Failure: from Hunting Broken Components to Understanding
[50] J. Qin, Y. Liu, R. Grosvenor, A categorical framework of manufacturing for
Complex Systems, CRC Press, 2016.
industry 4.0 and beyond, Procedia Cirp 52 (2016) 173–178. Elsevier.
[16] G.H. Walker, et al., A review of sociotechnical systems theory: a classic concept
[51] D. Romero, J. Stahre, M. Taisch, The Operator 4.0: towards Socially Sustainable
for new command and control paradigms, Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 9 (6) (2008)
Factories of the Future, Elsevier, 2019.
479–499. Taylor & Francis.
[52] D. Romero, et al., The operator 4.0: human cyber-physical systems & adaptive
[17] C.-T. Yen, et al., Advanced manufacturing solution to industry 4.0 trend through
automation towards human-automation symbiosis work systems, in: IFIP
sensing network and Cloud Computing technologies, in: Automation Science and
International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems,
Engineering (CASE), 2014 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, 2014,
Springer, 2016, pp. 677–686.
pp. 1150–1152.
[53] S. Maguire, et al., 1.5 Complexity Science and Organization Studies, Sage
[18] A.A.F. Saldivar, et al., Industry 4.0 with cyber-physical integration: a design and
handbook of organization studies, 2006, pp. 165–214.
manufacture perspective, in: Automation and Computing (Icac), 2015 21st
[54] J. Bogg, R. Geyer, Complexity, Science and Society, Radcliffe Publishing, 2007.
International Conference on, IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–6.
[55] E.L. Trist, K.W. Bamforth, Some social and psychological consequences of the
[19] M.L. Nunes, A.C. Pereira, A.C. Alves, Smart Products Development Approaches
longwall method of coal-getting, Technol. Org. Innov.: Early Deb. 1 (2000) 79.
for Industry 4.0’, Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 13, Elsevier, 2017, pp. 1215–1222.
Taylor & Francis.
[20] L. Palazzeschi, O. Bucci, A. Di Fabio, ‘Re-thinking innovation in organizations in
[56] E. Trist, The Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems, vol. 2, Occasional paper,
the industry 4.0 scenario: new challenges in a primary prevention perspective’,
1981, p. 1981.
Frontiers in psychology, Frontiers 9 (2018) 30.
[57] F.M. van Eijnatten, Developments in socio-technical systems design (STSD), in:
[21] R. Davies, T. Coole, A. Smith, Review of socio-technical considerations to ensure
A Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, Psychology Press, 2013,
successful implementation of Industry 4.0, Procedia Manuf. 11 (2017)
pp. 73–100.
1288–1295. Elsevier.
[58] M.C. Davis, et al., Advancing socio-technical systems thinking: a call for bravery,
[22] E. Aiassa, et al., Applicability and feasibility of systematic review for performing
Appl. Ergon. 45 (2) (2014) 171–180. Elsevier.
evidence-based risk assessment in food and feed safety, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.
[59] G. Walker, ‘Come back sociotechnical systems theory, all is forgiven…’, Civil
55 (7) (2015) 1026–1034. Taylor & Francis.
Engineering and Environmental Systems, Taylor & Francis 32 (1–2) (2015)
[23] S. Green, J. Higgins, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions,
170–179.
Version, 2005.
[60] A. Cherns, The Principles of Sociotechnical Design’, Human Relations vol. 29,
[24] CRD, Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health
Sage Publications Sage CA, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1976, pp. 783–792, 8.
Care, University of York, Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, 2009.
[61] C.W. Clegg, Sociotechnical principles for system design, Appl. Ergon. 31 (5)
[25] D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, P. Smart, Towards a methodology for developing
(2000) 463–477. Elsevier.
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, Br. J.
[62] H.W. Hendrick, Organizational Design and Macroergonomics’, Handbook of
Manag. 14 (3) (2003) 207–222. Wiley Online Library.
Human Factors and Ergonomics, vol. 2, Wiley, New York, 1997, pp. 594–627.
[26] D. Denyer, D. Tranfield, J.E. Van Aken, ‘Developing Design Propositions through
[63] E. Mumford, Designing Secretaries: the Participative Design of a Word Processing
Research Synthesis’, Organization studies, Sage Publications Sage UK, London,
System, Manchester Business School Manchester, UK, 1983.
England, 2008, pp. 393–413, vol. 29(3).
[64] L. Klein, Working across the Gap: the Practice of Social Science in Organizations,
[27] D. Denyer, D. Tranfield, Producing a Systematic Review, ’ Sage Publications Ltd,
Karnac Books, 2005.
2009.
[65] C. Clegg, C. Shepherd, The biggest computer programme in the world… ever!”:
[28] J. Popay, et al., Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic
time for a change in mindset? J. Inf. Technol. 22 (3) (2007) 212–221. Springer.
Reviews’, A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme Version, vol. 1, Institute
[66] K. Eason, Local sociotechnical system development in the NHS national
of Health Research Lancaster, 2006, p. b92.
programme for information technology, J. Inf. Technol. 22 (3) (2007) 257–264.
[29] J. Beall, Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013, 2012 (Scholarly Open Access).
Springer.
[30] M. Berger, J. Cirasella, Beyond Beall’s List: better understanding predatory
[67] S. White, et al., When policy o’erleaps itself: the ‘tragic tale’of the Integrated
publishers, Coll. Res. Libr. News 76 (3) (2015) 132–135.
Children’s System, Crit. Soc. Pol. 30 (3) (2010) 405–429. SAGE Publications Sage
[31] V.S. Conn, et al., Beyond MEDLINE for literature searches, J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 35
UK: London, England.
(2) (2003) 177–182. Wiley Online Library.
[68] G. Baxter, I. Sommerville, ‘Socio-technical systems: from design methods to
[32] R. Whittemore, ‘Combining evidence in nursing research: methods and
systems engineering’, Interacting with computers, OUP 23 (1) (2011) 4–17.
implications’, Nur. Res. LWW 54 (1) (2005) 56–62.

10
M. Sony and S. Naik
[69] K. Birdi, et al., The impact of human resource and operational management
practices on company productivity: a longitudinal study, Person. Psychol. 61 (3)
(2008) 467–501. Wiley Online Library.
[70] A.M. Grant, Y. Fried, T. Juillerat, Work Matters: Job Design in Classic and
Contemporary Perspectives, American Psychological Association, 2011.
[71] G.H. Walker, et al., Human Factors Methods and Accident Analysis: Practical
Guidance and Case Study Applications, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2012.
[72] N. Leveson, A new accident model for engineering safer systems, Elsevier, Saf. Sci.
42 (2004) 237–270, 4.
[73] J. Rasmussen, Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem, Saf.
Sci. 27 (2–3) (1997) 183–213. Elsevier.
[74] J. Nelles, et al., Human-centered design of assistance systems for production
planning and control: the role of the human in Industry 4.0, in: 2016 IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), IEEE, 2016,
pp. 2099–2104.
[75] H.J. Lewitt, in: J.G. March (Ed.), Applying Organizational Change in Industry:
Structural, Technological and Humanistic Approaches’, Handbook of
Organizations, Rand Mc Nally, Chicago, III, 1965.
[76] M.L. Markus, D. Robey, Information technology and organizational change:
causal structure in theory and research, Manag. Sci. 34 (5) (1988) 583–598.
INFORMS.
[77] L.C. Thurow, The Corporation of the 1990s: Information Technology and
Organizational Transformation, Oxford University Press on Demand, 1991.
[78] C. Handy, Understanding Organizations, 2007 (Penguin Uk).
[79] D.M. Hosking, N. Anderson, Organizational Change and Innovation:
Psychological Perspectives and Practices in Europe, Routledge, 2018.
[80] C.W. Clegg, R. Challenger, Crowd disasters: a socio-technical systems perspective,
in: Crowds in the 21st Century, Routledge, 2015, pp. 92–109.
[81] E. Rauch, C. Linder, P. Dallasega, Anthropocentric perspective of production
before and within Industry 4.0, Comput. Ind. Eng. 139 (January 2020), 105644,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.01.018 (Elsevier).
[82] Y. Liao, et al., Past, present and future of Industry 4.0-a systematic literature
review and research agenda proposal, Int. J. Prod. Res. 55 (12) (2017)
3609–3629. Taylor & Francis.
[83] A. Nauta, C.K.W. De Dreu, T. Van Der Vaart, ‘Social value orientation,
organizational goal concerns and interdepartmental problem-solving behavior’,
J. Organ. Behav.: Int. J. Ind. Occup. Org. Psychol. Behav. 23 (2) (2002) 199–213.
Wiley Online Library.
[84] F. P�
erez, et al., A CPPS architecture approach for industry 4.0, in: Emerging
Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA), 2015 IEEE 20th Conference on,
IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–4.
[85] S. Gopalakrishnan, F. Damanpour, ‘A review of innovation research in economics,
sociology and technology management, Omega. Pergamon 25 (1) (1997) 15–28.
[86] C.A. O’Reilly, J. Chatman, D.F. Caldwell, ‘People and organizational culture: a
profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit’, Academy of
management journal, Acad. Manag. Briarcliff Manor 34 (3) (1991) 487–516. NY
10510.
[87] J.B. Barney, ‘Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive
advantage?’, Academy of management review, Acad. Manag. 11 (3) (1986)
656–665.
[88] D. Floyd, ‘Eastern and Western management practices: myth or reality? Manag.
Decis. 37 (8) (1999) 628–632. MCB UP Ltd.
[89] J. Xiang, N. Archer, B. Detlor, Business process redesign project success: the role
of socio-technical theory, Bus. Process Manag. J. 20 (5) (2014) 773–792. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
11
Technology in Society 61 (2020) 101248
[90] S. Shamim, et al., Management approaches for Industry 4.0: a human resource
management perspective, in: Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2016 IEEE
Congress on, IEEE, 2016, pp. 5309–5316.
[91] V. Albino, N. Carbonara, I. Giannoccaro, Supply chain cooperation in industrial
districts: a simulation analysis, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 177 (1) (2007) 261–280.
Elsevier.
[92] M. Christopher, Logistics & Supply Chain Management, Pearson UK, 2016.
[93] J. Auramo, J. Kauremaa, K. Tanskanen, Benefits of IT in supply chain
management: an explorative study of progressive companies, Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
Logist. Manag. 35 (2) (2005) 82–100. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[94] D. Ivanov, et al., A dynamic model and an algorithm for short-term supply chain
scheduling in the smart factory industry 4.0, Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (2) (2016)
386–402. Taylor & Francis.
[95] A.B.A. Hamid, I. Sukati, The relationship between firm integration and supply
chain orientation, J. Kemanusiaan 9 (1) (2011).
[96] L. Xue, et al., Risk mitigation in supply chain digitization: system modularity and
information technology governance, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 30 (1) (2013) 325–352.
Taylor & Francis.
[97] F. Kache, S. Seuring, Challenges and opportunities of digital information at the
intersection of Big Data Analytics and supply chain management, Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 37 (1) (2017) 10–36. Emerald Publishing Limited.
[98] K.L. Croxton, et al., The supply chain management processes, Int. J. Logist.
Manag. 12 (2) (2001) 13–36. MCB UP Ltd.
[99] R.A. Dowty, W.A. Wallace, Implications of organizational culture for supply chain
disruption and restoration, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 126 (1) (2010) 57–65. Elsevier.
[100] J. Jungbae Roh, P. Hong, Y. Park, Organizational culture and supply chain
strategy: a framework for effective information flows, J. Enterprise Inf. Manag. 21
(4) (2008) 361–376. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[101] C. Leyh, S. Martin, T. Sch€ affer, Industry 4.0 and Lean Production—a matching
relationship? An analysis of selected Industry 4.0 models, in: Computer Science
and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 2017 Federated Conference on, IEEE, 2017,
pp. 989–993.
[102] K. Lichtblau, et al., ‘Industrie 4.0-readiness’, impuls-Stiftung des VDMA aachen-
k€
oln, Impuls-Stiftung 52 (1) (2015) 1–77.
[103] J. Posada, et al., Visual computing as a key enabling technology for industrie 4.0
and industrial internet, IEEE Comp. Graphics Appl. 35 (2) (2015) 26–40. IEEE.
[104] G. Beier, et al., ‘Industry 4.0: how it is defined from a sociotechnical perspective
and how much sustainability it includes–A literature review’, J. Clean. Prod.
(2020) 120856. Elsevier.
[105] M. Sony, S. Naik, Ten lessons for managers while implementing industry 4.0, IEEE
Eng. Manag. Rev. 47 (2) (2019) 45–52, https://doi.org/10.1109/
EMR.2019.2913930 (IEEE).
[106] S. Wang, J. Wan, D. Zhang, et al., Towards smart factory for industry 4.0: a self-
organized multi-agent system with big data based feedback and coordination,
Comput. Network. 101 (2016) 158–168. Elsevier.
[107] S. Wrede, et al., Vertical integration and service orchestration for modular
production systems using business process models, Procedia Technol. 26 (2016)
259–266. Elsevier.
[108] M. Rubmann, et al., Industry 4.0: the Future of Productivity and Growth in
Manufacturing Industries, vol. 9, Boston Consulting Group, 2015.
[109] C.R. Carter, D.S. Rogers, A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
moving toward new theory, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5) (2008)
360–387. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[110] S.-V. Buer, J.O. Strandhagen, F.T.S. Chan, The link between Industry 4.0 and lean
manufacturing: mapping current research and establishing a research agenda, Int.
J. Prod. Res. 56 (8) (2018) 2924–2940. Taylor & Francis.