9th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management and

9th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management and

Control
9th IFAC
Control
Berlin,
9th IFAC
Conference
Germany, August
Conference 28-30, 2019 Available
on Manufacturing
on Manufacturing
online
Modelling, at www.sciencedirect.com
Management and
Modelling, Management and
Control
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
Control
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2189–2194
Assessing the barriers to Industry 4.0 implementation from a workers’ perspective
Assessing the barriers to Industry 4.0 implementation from a workers’ perspective
Assessing the barriers to Industry 4.0 implementation from a workers’ perspective
Assessing the barriers to Industry 4.0 implementation from a workers’ perspective
Julian M. Müller*
Julian M. Müller*
Julian M. Müller*
Julian M. of
*Salzburg University Müller*
Applied Sciences, 5412
Puch/Salzburg, *Salzburg University
Austria, (e-mail:  of Applied Sciences, 5412
julian.mueller@fh-salzburg.ac.at)
Puch/Salzburg, *Salzburg University
Austria, (e-mail:of Applied Sciences, 5412
*Salzburg University ofjulian.mueller@fh-salzburg.ac.at)
Applied Sciences, 5412
Puch/Salzburg, Austria, (e-mail: julian.mueller@fh-salzburg.ac.at)
Puch/Salzburg, Austria, (e-mail: julian.mueller@fh-salzburg.ac.at)
Abstract: Industry 4.0 aims to generate not only economic, but also ecological and social benefits. So far,
Abstract:
the majority Industry 4.0 aims papers
of scientific to generate has not
dealt only
witheconomic, but alsofoundations
technological ecological and social benefits.
or showcases within So far,
the
Abstract:
the majority Industry 4.0 aims papers
of scientific to generate has not
dealt only
witheconomic, but alsofoundations
technological ecological and or social benefits.
showcases within So far,
the
Abstract:
concept,
the majority Industry
whereas 4.0
of scientificaims
economic, to generate
and
papers not
especially only economic,
ecological
has dealtecological
with technologicaland but also
social ecological
aspects
foundations have and
been
or social benefits.
considered
showcases So
less,
within far,
but
the
concept,
the majority
are of high whereas economic,
of scientific aspapers
importance, and especially
has dealt
particularly withconcerns
social and social
technologicalhamper aspects
foundations
Industry have been considered
or showcases
4.0 implementation. less,
withinThis but
the
concept,
are of high whereas economic,
importance, and
as and especially
particularly ecological
social concerns and social
hamper aspects
Industry have been considered less, but
concept,
includes, whereas
among economic,
other factors, especiallyfears
workers’ ecological
to be and social
replaced by aspects
machines, have4.0 beenimplementation.
especiallyconsidered
relating less,
to This
but
low
are of high
includes, amongimportance,
other factors,as particularly
workers’ socialtoconcerns
fears be replaced hamper Industry 4.0
by machines, implementation.
especially relating to This
low
are
shilled of jobs
high orimportance,
repetitive as particularly
tasks. Further, socialin concerns
distrust new hamper
technologies orIndustry
lacking 4.0 skillsimplementation.
of employees canThis
be
includes,
shilled jobsamong
or other
repetitive factors,
tasks. workers’
Further, fears
distrust to
in be
new replaced
technologies by machines,
or lacking especially
skills of relating
employees to
canlowbe
includes,
named. among
This paperotheraims factors,
to workers’tofears
contribute this totopic
be replaced
by by machines,
interviewing especially relating
41representatives of a to low
German
shilled
named. jobs
Thisor repetitive tasks. Further, distrust thisin new technologies or lacking skills of employees can be
shilled
manufacturingjobs orpaper
plant aims
repetitivein orderto contribute
tasks. Further,
to identify toconcerns
distrust intopic
new by interviewing
technologies
hampering 41representatives
or lacking
Industry skills of employees
4.0 implementation. of Thea German
can
paperbe
named.
manufacturing This paper
plant aims
in orderto contribute
to identify to this
concerns topic by
hampering interviewing
Industry 41representatives
4.0 implementation. of a German
named.
presents This
concernspaper aims
regarding toIndustry
contribute 4.0 to this topic
implementation byand
interviewing
several 41representatives
reasons behind the of The
barriers a Germanpaper
named,
manufacturing
presents concerns plant in orderIndustry
regarding to identify concerns hampering Industry 4.0 implementation. Thenamed,
paper
manufacturing
for instance
presents
plant
employee
concerns
inacceptance
regarding Industrythat4.0
order to identify implementation
mostly
4.0
concerns
relatinghampering
implementation
and to
to fears
and to
several
Industry reasons
be replaced,
several reasonslacking
behind support
4.0 implementation. the barriers
behind support
the barriers
Thelacking
and paper
named,
for instance
presents
competencies. employee
concerns acceptance
regarding
Copyright © Industry
2019 that
IFAC mostly
4.0 relating
implementation to fears
and be
several replaced,
reasons lacking
behind the barriersand lacking
named,
for instance employee
competencies. Copyright acceptance
© 2019 IFAC that mostly relating to fears to be replaced, lacking support and lacking
for instance employee acceptance that mostly relating to fears to be replaced, lacking support and lacking
© 2019, IFAC
competencies.
Keywords:
competencies. (International
Copyright
Industry
Copyright
© Federation
2019
4.0, Industrial
© 2019
IFAC of Automatic
Internet
IFAC of Things, Control) Hosting
Case study, by Elsevier
Worker Ltd. AllSocial
perspective, rights dimension
reserved.
Keywords: Industry 4.0, Industrial Internet of Things, Case study, Worker perspective, Social dimension
Keywords: Industry 4.0, Industrial Internet of Things,  Case study, Worker perspective, Social dimension
Keywords: Industry 4.0, Industrial Internet of Things,  Case study, Worker perspective, Social dimension
their integration in industrial manufacturing can be termed as
1. INTRODUCTION  their integration production
in industrialsystems manufacturing can be termed as
1. INTRODUCTION  cyber-physical (Schlechtendahl et al.,
their integration production
cyber-physical in industrialsystems manufacturing can be termed
(Schlechtendahl as
et al.,
Industry 4.0 represent 1. INTRODUCTION their
2015). integration
The in
utilization industrial
a concept that is internationally also cyber-physical production systems (Schlechtendahl et al., of manufacturing
cyber-physical can
systems be
in termed
industrialas
1. INTRODUCTION 2015). The utilization of cyber-physical systems in industrial
Industry
known 4.0
as4.0 represent
therepresent a concept
Industriala Internet that
of is
Things.internationally
Worldwide,also also cyber-physical
production, production
logistics and systems
accompanying
the 2015). The utilization of cyber-physical systems in industrial (Schlechtendahl
processes et al.,
offers
Industryas
known the Industrial concept of thatThings.
is internationally the production, logisticssuch andcyber-physical
asaccompanying processes offers
Industry
“Industrial 4.0 represent
Internet a Internet
concept which
Consortium” that is can Worldwide,
internationally
be found in also
the 2015).
different
production,
The utilization
potentials,
logisticssuch
of
andas real-time condition
accompanying
systems in
processes
industrial
monitoring,
offers
known as
“Industrial the Industrial
Internet Internet
Consortium” of
whichThings.
can beWorldwide,
found the
in the different potentials, real-time condition monitoring,
known
USA or as“Made
the Industrial
in China Internet
2025”, of Things.
represented Worldwide,
by the the production,
“Internet prognostics,
different
logisticsdiagnosis
remote
potentials, such
and accompanying
as and remote
real-time
processes
control
condition
offers
(Müller
monitoring, et
“Industrial
USA or “MadeInternetin Consortium”
China 2025”, which can be
represented by found
the in the prognostics,
“Internet different
al. 2018a). remotepotentials
potentials,
Further diagnosis
such as and remote
real-time
include controlmonitoring,
condition
self-organization, (Müller et
error
“Industrial
Plus Internet
Initiative”, are Consortium”
comparable which can be
equivalents,byamong found in the
many prognostics, remote diagnosis and remote control (Müller et
USA Initiative”,
Plus or “Made inare China 2025”, represented
comparable equivalents, the “Internet al. 2018a). Further and potentials
diagnosis include self-organization, error
USA
further
Plus or worldwide
“Made inare
Initiative”, China 2025”,
(Müller
comparable andrepresented
Voigt, 2018).
equivalents, byamong
theWith
among
many
the prognostics,
“Internet
many
predictability
al. 2018a). Further
remote continuous
potentials
and
include
remote
optimization, control
self-organization,
(Müller
exceeding et
the
error
further worldwide (Müller and Voigt, 2018). With the predictability
al. 2018a). Further
boundaries of and continuous
potentials
enterprises to optimization,
include
its customers exceeding
self-organization,
and suppliers, the
error
as
Plus
conceptInitiative”,
Industry are
4.0,comparable
the German equivalents,
government, among many
alongside predictability
further worldwide
concept Industry (Müller
4.0, the and Voigt,
German 2018). With
government, alongside the boundaries of and continuous
enterprises optimization,
customers andexceeding
to itsinterconnection insuppliers,
the
as
further
industrial worldwide
and research (Müller and Voigt,
institutions, intends 2018). With
to introduce thea predictability
well as across
boundaries of
and continuous
functions.
enterprises This
to its
optimization,
customers and
exceeding
real-timethe
suppliers, is
as
concept
industrial Industry
and 4.0,
research the German
institutions, government,
intends to alongside
introduce a well asintended
boundaries
also acrossof functions.
enterprises
along This
the to interconnection
its
entirecustomers
lifecycle and inof real-time
suppliers,
products: is
as
concept
paradigm Industry
shift 4.0, athedigital
towards German and government, alongside
interconnected future in well as across functions. This interconnection in real-time is
industrial shift
paradigm and towards
research ainstitutions,
digital intends to introduce
andfuture
interconnected future of inaa also well asintended along
across functions.
Interconnection, value the Thisentire
creation, lifecycle
interconnection
value inof
consumption products:
real-time andis
industrial value
and research
creation institutions,
to ensure intends to introduce
competitiveness also intended along the entire lifecycle of products:
paradigm shift
industrial value towards
creation a to
digital
ensure andfuture
interconnected
competitivenessfuture of in Interconnection,
also intended
recycling (Kiel et value
along
al., creation,
the
2017; entire
Müller value
et lifecycle
al., consumption
2018a). of and
products:
paradigm
the German shiftindustry.
towards aThe digital
conceptand interconnected
emerged future
has competitiveness to be of ina Interconnection, value creation, value consumption and
industrial
the German value creationThe
industry. to ensure
concept future
has emergedoftoThings be ofa recycling (Kiel et al.,
Interconnection, value 2017; Müller etvalue
creation, al., 2018a).
consumption and
industrial
synonym value
for the creation
digitizationto ensure
based future
on the competitiveness
Internet recycling (Kielperspective,
et al., 2017; benefits
Müller etasal., 2018a).
the German
synonym for industry.
the The
digitization concept
based on has
the emerged
Internet ofto be
Things a From
recyclinga social
(Kiel et al., 2017; Müller et well
al., as challenges are
2018a).
the German
worldwide industry.
(Kagermann The concept
et based
al., 2013; has emerged
Lasi et al., to be a
2014; From a social perspective, benefits as well as challenges are
synonym
worldwide for the digitization on the Internet of Things predicted (Kiel et al., 2017). Social benefits ofchallenges
Industry 4.0
synonym
Zezulka
worldwide al.(Kagermann
etfor the digitization
2016).
(Kagermann
et based
al., 2013;
The technical
et al., 2013; on theLasi
developments
Lasi
et required
Internet al., 2014;
of Things
et required
al., 2014;
From a social
for predicted (Kielperspective,
et inal.,the2017). benefits
Social asbenefits
well asof Industry 4.0 are
Zezulka et al. 2016). The technical developments for From
can be a social
expected perspective, benefits
form of as wellwage
fairer as challenges
assessments, are
worldwide
establishing (Kagermann
Industry 4.0 et predicted
are al., 2013;toLasi lead et
to al., 2014; can
managerial predicted (Kiel
be expected et al., 2017). Social benefits of Industry 4.0
Zezulka et al.Industry
establishing 2016). The 4.0 technical
are predicteddevelopments
to lead to required
managerial for predicted
enhanced (Kiel
human et in the formSocial
al.,learning,
2017). of
and fairer
benefitswage
augmented of assessments,
Industry
employee4.0
Zezulka
and et al. 2016). The
organizational technicalthat
challenges developments
can required for enhanced
be intimidating can be expected human in learning,
the form of andfairer wage assessments,
augmented employee
establishing
and Industry challenges
organizational 4.0 are predicted that can to lead be to managerial can be expected
motivation (Herrmann in theet form of
al., 2014; fairer wageetassessments,
Peukert al., 2015).
establishing
especially for Industry
small 4.0 are
and predicted
medium-sized tointimidating
toenterprises
lead managerial
(Müller, enhanced
motivation human
(Herrmann learning,
et al.,4.0, and
2014; augmented
Peukert et al.,employee
2015).
and organizational
especially for small challenges
and medium-sizedthat can be
enterprisesintimidating
(Müller, enhanced
However, human
regarding learning,
Industry andalso augmented
several concernsemployee
from
and
2019a; organizational
Müller et challenges that can be intimidating However, regarding Industry 4.0, also several concerns2015).
al., 2017). motivation (Herrmann et al., 2014; Peukert et al., from
especially
2019a; Müllerfor small and medium-sized enterprises (Müller, motivation
a social (Herrmann
perspective have et
beenal., 2014;
raised, Peukert
relating to,etforal., 2015).
instance,
especially for et al., 2017).
small and medium-sized enterprises (Müller, aHowever, social regardinghave
perspective Industry
been 4.0, alsorelating
raised, severalto, concerns
for from
instance,
2019a;
The Müller
term Industryet al.,4.02017).
expresses the opinion that industrial However,
aa social regarding
loss ofperspective
jobs, lacking Industry
training 4.0,
andalso several concerns
competencies, from
asinstance,
well as
2019a; Müller et al., 2017). aaemployees’
loss ofperspective
jobs, resistance
lacking have been
training raised, relating
andhindering
competencies, to, for asinstance,
well as
The
value term Industry
creation 4.0
is 4.0 expresses
heading towards the opinion
the fourth that industrial
Industrial social have beenand raised, relating to, for
organizational
The term Industry expresses the opinion that Industrial
industrial employees’ a loss of jobs, resistance
lacking training and and competencies,
hindering as well as
organizational
value
The creation
term
Revolution. Industry
The isprevious
heading
4.0 towards
expresses
three the Revolutions
the opinion
Industrial fourth
that industrial
were a loss of jobs,
structures. lackingregarding
Especially training and
the competencies,
loss of jobs, as well
low as
skilled
value creation isprevious
headingthree towards the Revolutions
fourth Industrial employees’ resistance and hindering organizational
Revolution.
value
driven creation
by Themain
three is heading Industrial
towards
technologies: the fourth
mechanization, were structures.
Industrial
electricity employees’
as well as Especially
resistance
planning regarding
activitiesandcouldthehindering
loss
be of jobs,
automated, lowwhereas
skilled
organizational
Revolution. Themain previous three Industrial Revolutions were as structures.
well Especially regardingcould the loss of jobs, lowwhereas skilled
driven
IT by
Revolution.
and (Vezathree
The
et main technologies:
previous
al., 2015). mechanization,
three Industrial
These technologies, also electricity
Revolutions were structures.
described new
as jobas
well as
planning
Especially
profiles
planning
activities
regarding fields
in IT-related
activities
the loss
could
be
areautomated,
be
ofrare
jobs,
automated,
low skilled
(Birkel et al.,
whereas
driven
and by
IT by
(Vezathree et main technologies:
al., technologies,
2015). mechanization,
These technologies, electricity
also electricity
described newas job
well
2019; asprofiles
Bonekampplanning in IT-related
and activities
Sure, 2015; fields
couldKiel are
beet rare2017;
automated,
al., (Birkel et and
whereas
Stock al.,
driven
as three
general-purpose technologies: mechanization,
resulted in strong technical new job profiles and in IT-related fields are rare (Birkel et and
al.,
andgeneral-purpose
as IT (Veza et al., technologies,
2015). These technologies,
resulted in also described
strong technical 2019;
new Bonekamp
job
Seliger, profiles
2016). in Sure,
IT-related
Particularly 2015;
for Kiel
fields
SMEs, et
are al.,
rare
such 2017; Stock
(Birkel
concerns et al.,
are
and IT (Veza etand
improvements al., 2015).
increased These technologies,
productivity also
after described 2019; Bonekamp and Sure, 2015; Kiel et al., 2017; Stock and
introduction
as general-purpose
improvements and technologies,
increased resulted
productivity in strong
after technical
introduction Seliger,
2019; 2016).
Bonekamp
augmented by a Particularly
and
lack Sure,
of for
2015;
resources SMEs,
Kiel andet such
al.,
access2017;concerns
to Stock are
and
qualified
as general-purpose
(Bresnahan technologies,
& Trajtenberg, 1995).resulted
For inIndustry
strong technical
4.0, the Seliger, 2016). Particularly for SMEs, such concerns are
improvements
(Bresnahan & and increased 1995).
Trajtenberg, productivity after introduction
For Industry 4.0, the augmented Seliger,
personnel, by aas
2016).
such lack of resources
Particularly
IT experts for SMEs,
(Müller, and2019b;
access
such Müller to qualified
concerns et are
al.,
improvements
general-purpose and increased productivity
technologies are after introduction
cyber-physical systems, augmented such by aaslack of resources and2019b;
accessMüller to qualified
(Bresnahan
general-purpose & Trajtenberg,
technologies 1995).
are For Industry
cyber-physical 4.0,
systems,the personnel,
augmented
2018b). by
Several a IT
lack
authors experts
of (Müller,
resources
emphasize and
the access
importance to et al.,
qualified
of socio-
(Bresnahan
which rely on & theTrajtenberg,
Internet of 1995).
Things For(LasiIndustry 4.0,
et al.,systems, the personnel, such as IT experts (Müller, 2019b; Müller et al.,
2014),
general-purpose
which rely on the technologies
Internet of are cyber-physical
Things (Lasi etthe 2014), 2018b).
al.,systems, personnel,
economic Several
such as
frame authors emphasize
IT experts
conditions for (Müller, the 2019b;
the successful importance Müller of socio-
implementation et al.,
general-purpose
whose two outcomes technologies
are are
connectivity cyber-physical
between physical 2018b). Several authors emphasize the importance of socio-
which
whose rely
two on the
outcomes Internet of
are connectivityThings (Lasi
between et al.,
the 2014),
physical economic
2018b).
of Industry frame
Several
4.0 conditions
authorsetemphasize
(Davies for
al., the
2017; successful
the importance
Kamble etimplementation
al., of socio-
2018).
which
and rely
virtual on the
worlds Internet
and of Things
collection and (Lasi et
analysis.al., 2014),
Cyber- economic
whose
and
whose
two outcomes
virtual
two worldsoffer
outcomes
are connectivity
and collection and
aremechanisms
connectivity
between the physical
analysis.
between Cyber- of
the physical Industryframe
economic frame
conditions
4.0 (Davies
conditions et al.,for the successful
for2017; Kamble etimplementation
the successful al., 2018).
implementation
physical
and systems
virtual worlds and collection for
and human-to-human,
analysis. Cyber- of Industry 4.0 (Davies et al., 2017; Kamble et al., of2018).
physical systems offer mechanisms for human-to-human, However,
of Industry so4.0far, social etchallenges
(Davies al., 2017; in the context
Kamble et Industry
al., 2018).
and virtual worlds
human-to-object and and collection and
object-to-object analysis. whereas
interaction, Cyber- However, so far, social challenges in the context of Industry
physical systems
human-to-object offer
and mechanisms
object-to-object for human-to-human,
interaction, whereas 4.0 have mostly been regarded from a management or
physical systems offer mechanisms for human-to-human, 4.0 However,
have so far, social
mostly been challenges
regarded in from the context
a management of Industry or
human-to-object and object-to-object interaction, whereas However, 4.0 have so far, social
mostly been challenges
regarded in
from the context
a of Industry
management or
human-to-object and object-to-object interaction, whereas
2405-8963 ©
Copyright © 2019, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
2019 IFAC
4.0 have mostly been regarded from a management or
2239Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Peer review©under
Copyright 2019 responsibility
IFAC of International Federation of Automatic
2239Control.
Copyright © 2019 IFAC
10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.530 2239
Copyright © 2019 IFAC 2239
2019 IFAC MIM
2190
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Julian M. Müller / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2189–2194

macroeconomic perspective, but not from a workers’
perspective. The paper attempts to close this research gap by
asking those who are actually expected to be the first who are
affected by Industry 4.0. Consequently, the research question
addressed by this paper is the following:
How are barriers to Industry 4.0 implementation assessed
from a workers’ perspective?
2. RESEARCH DESIGN
workers were randomly selected to participate in the study in
order to generate generalizable results with as little bias as
possible. The entire process was supported by the workers’
council in order to generate as many insights from the
workers as possible that repeat management goals and
official statements as little as possible. Thereby, the paper is
among the first that assesses social concerns regarding
Industry 4.0 not from a managers’ or macroeconomic
perspective, but from a workers’ perspective.

3. FINDINGS
2.1 Method
When asked about the barriers and roadblocks to the
Owing to the lack of prior systematic research in the field of sustainable implementation of Industry 4.0 solutions, the 41
effects of Industry 4.0 and social implications, we decided to respondents expressed numerous problems, that they had
conduct an exploratory case study within a production plant already faced or feared, would arise. Table 1 shows all the
of a German industrial enterprise. Case study research concerns that have been mentioned. The respondents most
represent a valuable research design in exploratory research concerned about the achievement of employee acceptance (20
as rich data can be obtained, enabling the researchers to out of 41 respondents) regarding to the implementation of
investigate concrete managerial problems in existing fields of Industry 4.0.
application, allowing to extend the existing state of research
(Yin, 2009; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Besides, case Table 1. Concerns regarding Industry 4.0 implementation
study research has been used successfully in information
# Category Explanation
systems research (Dubé and Paré, 2003), as represented by
20 Employee Employees question, slow down, or
Industry 4.0 respectively the Internet of Things.
acceptance prevent, the implementation of
To conduct our case study, we followed the strategy to find a Industry 4.0, reasons are given in
representative sample (Yin, 2009; Eisenhardt and Graebner, Table 2
2007). As a primary source of data we conducted semi- 16 Lacking Employees state towards Industry
structured interviews, developing an interview guideline competencies 4.0 that especially traditional
representing our research question. As a secondary source, and know-how manufacturing job profiles do not
for triangulation purposes in order to validate our research, cover IT-related competencies that
we used internal data provided by the industrial company Industry 4.0 demands
regarded (Yin, 2009; Gibbert et al, 2008; Huber and Power, 12 Lacking In order to implement Industry 4.0,
1985). We conducted the interviews via telephone as well as cooperation i.e., no generation of compound
in person. As a next step, we recorded the interviews on among effects and single solutions for each
audio files with the permission of the interviewees. The departments department
interviews were transcribed from the audio files to text, 10 Lacking The interviewees state an unclear
followed by a qualitative content analysis (Miles and strategy and strategy and implementation targets
Hubermann, 1994). During the process of qualitative content target of of Industry 4.0, hence,
analysis, our team of researchers defined the categories implementation uncoordinated and low commitment
inductively and aligned them with existing research, allowing can be observed
new knowledge to arise (Edmondson and McManus, 2007). 7 Data access Unclear data access rights make
Further, the authors formed the categories using frequency and protection employees fear that their data is
analysis (Holsti, 1969) and the process was conducted by two passed without their assent with
researchers independently. After this, we checked the unclear consequences for them
categories for consistency and compared them to derive inter- 6 Lacking Existing tasks of workers prevent
coder reliability (Holsti, 1969), thereby in sum validating the capacities them to find time and resources to
coding process. focus on the implementation of
Industry 4.0
2.2 Sample description 6 Availability of The data existing so far has different
usable data standards, quality criteria and
For the case study, a production plant of a German industrial formats that they are stored in,
manufacturer was chosen, that which is considered as a limiting interoperability and
leading factory regarding Industry 4.0 within the company. requiring reformatting for each
Due to this advanced state of Industry 4.0-implementation, individual purpose
the results obtained can serve as a role model for further, less 6 Too cost- Potentials of Industry 4.0 and its
advanced plants and companies. To address the question of driven implementation are assessed from a
barriers to Industry 4.0 implementation from a workers’ approach cost perspective, whilst the
perspective, 41 representatives were interviewed. The implementation is regarded as an
ongoing process that requires to wait

2240
2019 IFAC MIM
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Julian M. Müller / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2189–2194
for benefits that will only occur on
the long-term
5 Organizational Existing organizational structures
structure are considered as unsuitable to
implement Industry 4.0, especially
regarding the acquisition of external
knowledge regarding IT-
competencies
4 Dependency Employees fear that when Industry
from machines 4.0 systems fail, they will have no
“fall back” solution to continue
operating
4 Usage of Employees fear that surveillance
employee data data will be used against them, for
and instance, if productivity is too low
surveillance or if they have illnesses decreasing
their output, that might lead to them
losing their jobs
3 Unclear Workers are unaware about the
benefits for actual benefits that Industry 4.0
workers brings for them, preventing their
support
2 Efforts for There is no support or reward if
Industry 4.0 employees make efforts to support
that are not the implementation of Industry 4.0
rewarded
2 Lacking top Employees state that top
management management emphasizes the
support importance of Industry 4.0, but does
not actively support its
implementation on the shop floor
2 Automation Employees fear that decisions will
takes decisions be taken by machines, reducing the
from humans value of humans
In the further course, the four most named aspects, employee
acceptance, lacking competencies and know-how, lacking
cooperation among departments, and lacking strategy and
target of implementation were considered. Therefore, the
representatives were interviewed once again in order to state
their reasons for this assessment. Further, concerns of data
security and data protection were once again asked to all 41
respondents, as this topic was identified to be especially
relevant from a workers’ council perspective. In the
following, Tables 2 to 5 present the reasons given behind the
respective challenges.
In order to better understand the high frequency of almost
half of the sample assessing “employee acceptance”, the
interviewees were asked to give further reasons for this
assessment. Table 2 states the reasons given for low
employee acceptance (n = 20).
Table 2. Possible reasons for low employee acceptance
Frequency Category
6 Fear of job losses
5 Lacking experience with new technologies
5 Older employees fear that their competencies
are insufficient, leading to job losses
2241
2191
4 Fear of yet unknown developments
3 Feared loss of competence
2 Isolated perspective rather than opinion
created among peers
2 Employees do not understand the value of data
2 Fears are not addressed by management
As with 16 interviewees, well over a third believe that both,
the right skills and the necessary know-how to implement
Industry 4.0 sustainably are lacking. The respondents of this
question were also asked once again to state the reasons for
this assessment (Table 3, n = 16).
Table 3. Reasons behind lack of competencies
Frequency Category
9 Lack of qualification, especially IT-related
competencies that were not required and
therefore not trained for workers so far
5 Lacking new idea generation of management
3 Lacking software and data competencies
Further, as twelve out of the 41 participants criticize the
cooperation within the production plant and think that this
could hinder the introduction of Industry 4.0, the reasons
behind this assessment were asked (see Table 4).
Table 4. Reasons behind lacking cooperation
Frequency Category
9 Different approaches among departments
6 Competitive thinking among departments
5 Different solutions among departments
1 “Not invented here” syndrome
A further problem mentioned is that there would be no clear
objective about where Industry 4.0 would exactly go in the
company, mentioned by ten interviewees. Table 5 shows the
reasons behind this assessment (n = 10).
Table 5. Reasons for lacking strategy and targets of
Industry 4.0
Frequency Category
5 Employees/customers are integrated too little
4 Employees must recognize benefits
3 Systems are used that are not yet ready
2 High average age of decision-makers
In response to the perceived high relevance of the topics, the
reasons behind concerns about data security were asked to all
41 respondents again, for which 40 of the interview
participants replied. By far the biggest concern is that
outsiders could acquire in-house know-how (mentioned 16
times). In addition, people are particularly afraid of attacks
(mentioned seven times) and of pressure resulting from data
transparency (mentioned seven times). For example, it is
feared that customers who have an insight into the order data
will thus have a means of exerting pressure. But there is also
2019 IFAC MIM
2192
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Julian M. Müller / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2189–2194
concern that data transparency could lead to internal
problems, such as high expectations due to
misinterpretations.
Among the further challenges for which the reasons were not
further investigated are the topic of data protection and
access, mentioned seven times. There are still no regulations
here, which is why data exchange with external parties, i.e.
with both customers and suppliers, is currently problematic.
Further obstacles for the implementation of Industry 4.0 are
too little free capacities to work on (mentioned six times). In
addition, the profitability of Industry 4.0 projects would be
considered too early, which would make implementation
much more difficult (mentioned six times). According to the
interviewees, sometimes one needs more patience, sometimes
the benefit comes only through synergy effects in follow-up
projects. In addition, it is sometimes difficult to obtain usable
data (mentioned six times). Missing sensors, the age of the
machines used, or missing interfaces are often the reason.
Also, there is often no one-to-one relationship between
collected values and individual parts. Some of the
respondents doubt that the way the company is organized is
suitable for the implementation of Industry 4.0 (mentioned
five times).
Regarding data protection from a workers’ perspective, on
the one hand, the interviewees themselves mention their fears
regarding employee monitoring, which might be possible
with Industry 4.0 solutions (mentioned four times). The
monitoring of employees must be viewed critically and must
not happen. On the other hand, Industry 4.0 can also to be
blocked with the use of coworker data (mentioned four
times). Another concern that four of the respondents share is
the dependency on the machine, which continues to increase
due to Industry 4.0. In addition, there are problems in
demonstrating the advantages and benefits of Industry 4.0,
which makes its introduction more difficult (mentioned three
times). There is also concern that networking will make the
systems even slower (mentioned three times). Another
problem is the missing IT infrastructure (mentioned two
times).
4. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
A clear strategy must be defined for the introduction of
Industry 4.0 to be successful. This must include a vision that
explains what Industry 4.0 is intended to achieve. Clear goals
must be set that are understandable and achievable. The study
has shown that there are many problems when working
without strategy and clear goals. The implementation of
projects seems chaotic. Thus there is no common procedure,
which also affects cooperation beyond departmental
boundaries. Achieving employee acceptance is also made
more difficult if it is not clear what they should engage in.
One suggestion for a possible vision of the future that could
guide the company is the complete digital representation of
the company, which was requested by some interview
participants.
Top management must clearly commit to the planned
implementation of Industry 4.0 and support it accordingly.
Company-wide acceptance can only be achieved if top
2242
management is clearly behind the introduction of Industry
4.0. It is needed to make quicker and more effective decisions
and to resolve conflicts. Collaboration between departments
and groups is imperative for a successful Industry 4.0, even
across company boundaries. This must be promoted. The
necessary support also includes the provision of sufficient
resources. The management level should be prepared for
disruptive changes. A further task is to form suitable project
teams that are supported by management in the
implementation of Industry 4.0. The company survey has
revealed the lack of sufficient resources for a company-wide
implementation of Industry 4.0. There is a lack both of
financial resources and of sufficient free human capacities. A
further problem is that projects are not tackled if a monetary
benefit is unclear or can only be achieved in the long term.
Management must decide whether it wants to transfer the
entire company into an intelligent factory. This goal can only
be achieved with sufficient resources and patience. If
Industry 4.0 is not demanded strongly enough from above,
the successful introduction of Industry 4.0 is unlikely.
The implementation of Industry 4.0 should be coordinated
and driven by a capable project management team. Since it
will be necessary to create synergies between the company,
the people and the IT, the team should at best consist of
members from different functions. The project management
initiates the implementation and draws up a detailed project
plan to achieve the clearly defined goals, for which it also
takes responsibility. This plan should be evaluated and
monitored from the beginning. Realistic expectations about
performance and timeframes should be communicated. A
transparent approach supports the successful implementation
of Industry 4.0. The survey participants lacked a uniform
coordination as well as a clear contact person and driver in
the plant. A suitable project team can take over these tasks.
Experience shows that consistency and motivation are
necessary to successfully intro-duce Industry 4.0. It is
important to involve the potential users of the planned
solutions from the very beginning. The team should always
be aware of this. The desire for Industry 4.0 for areas other
than manufacturing should also be considered.
An important factor for the success of Industry 4.0 is
employee acceptance. The results of the study have clearly
shown that this is a major concern on the part of the
interviewees. Emerging difficulties with the application of
Industry 4.0 solutions with regard to acceptance confirm the
impression of the experts. Uncertainty about the unknown as
well as the unfamiliar use of new media lead to problems. A
clear strategy and suitable training can help here. The
interviewees criticized that not enough educational work took
place. A suitable change management must take over this
task. It must be ensured that the changes in the company are
accepted sustainably. It is important here that these changes
are not only supported afterwards, but are also prepared
before they actually occur. Employee acceptance is one of the
most important reasons for a successful implementation of
standard software. Acceptance and motivation problems are a
big obstacle for the realization of the efficiency ad-vantages.
Non-use leads to large losses. The research results show that
this could also be a problem with the introduction of Industry
2019 IFAC MIM
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Julian M. Müller / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2189–2194
4.0. However, the accomplished interviews give only views
into the perspective of the high-level personnel and some few
project leaders as well as operating advisors. For a clear
statement, to what extent there are problems with the
coworker acceptance in the enterprise, these should be asked.
Industry 4.0 know-how and the skills required for the
introduction of Industry 4.0 must be created in the company.
This can only be achieved through intensive training and
further education. The survey showed that too little
knowledge about Industry 4.0 exists in the company. There is
also a lack of suitable skills, for example in dealing with new
media, understanding software or skills in data mining. In
addition, a high level of IT expertise is of great advantage.
The expansion of know-how and competencies should have a
high priority and begin before implementation. In an
intelligent factory, not only suitable specialists, who may also
have to be hired from scratch, but also independent work is
required. This should be encouraged at all costs. All in all,
this factor also requires a willingness to make high
investments.
Some entrepreneurial prerequisites must also be created for
the transition to an intelligent factory. The implementation of
Industry 4.0 can only succeed, due to the increasing
complexity, if the processes in the company are decentralized
by delegating responsibility and forming autonomous units.
This is confirmed by the concerns of some participants in the
study that Industry 4.0 cannot succeed due to its size and
rigid hierarchies. The company should be able to learn and
share knowledge. These skills are very helpful in introducing
change. Further-more, the cultural willingness to change the
organization towards Industry is crucial. In addition,
cooperation and communication between different
departments and across company boundaries is essential.
Industry 4.0 cannot be implemented alone. The results of the
study indicate that this represents a particular challenge for
the company. Special attention should be paid to the
promotion of cooperation across departmental boundaries.
The legal framework of Industry 4.0 must be clarified for its
successful implementation. Joint data access beyond
departmental and company boundaries must be legally
clarified. As the results of the study show, the advancement
of Industry 4.0 projects is severely restricted be-cause the
issue of access rights has not yet been regulated. A new form
of contract regulation is necessary. This should include topics
such as liability, data protection, trade secrets and an
appropriate distribution of profits in joint projects between
different companies. Another important issue to be
considered is the handling of personal data. The interviewees
ex-pressed concerns about employee monitoring. This must
not be made possible by Industry 4.0, otherwise the
successful implementation is strongly endangered. Therefore,
the company must find clear rules to exclude employee
monitoring and ensure the protection of personalized data.
Suitable partners must be selected for a sustainable
introduction of Industry 4.0. With regard to the introduction
of MRP systems, it has been pointed out that the know-how
of the providers and their support is important for the
successful implementation of the systems. At first, this factor
2243
2193
did not appear to be relevant for the introduction of Industry
4.0, as there is no system that can be purchased and installed.
However, the study revealed that some problems had already
arisen in joint projects with suppliers, as they lacked the
necessary know-how or financial resources for Industry 4.0.
Since a smart factory is networked with its suppliers and
works together on improvements, this presupposes the ability
to Industry 4.0. Care should therefore be taken to ensure that
potential Industry 4.0 partners possess or support these
capabilities.
Last, Industry 4.0 can only be successfully introduced if
operational security, data protection and IT security are
guaranteed. More than half of the interview participants
expressed concerns about data protection. These fears can
only be countered with suitable IT security.
5. CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS
In sum, the present paper is able to present first insights on
how workers assess challenges associated to Industry 4.0.
Whereas several aspects, for instance, skills shortages, fears
of job losses or further aspects are not unknown, especially
the aspects related to organizational barriers, e.g. competitive
thinking among departments and lacking communication,
offer new insights. These insights are also relevant from a
managerial perspective. Therefore, future research should
aim to further investigate the managerial as well as the
employees’’ assessment of Industry 4.0 implementation
together, as both perspectives seem to be complementary.
As a limitation of the exploratory nature of this study, it must
be noted that the findings must be extended and validated in a
broader context. For instance, the frequency of categories
does not directly relate to their importance. In response, for
instance, quantitative research designs could assist to address
this issue.
Further, the existence of several barriers for implementation
of Industry 4.0 named might already have been present for
other technologies. Therefore, future studies should further
shed light regarding the distinct barriers of implementation of
Industry 4.0, while others might be associated to
organizational transformation in general.
REFERENCES
Birkel, H. S., Veile, J. W., Müller, J. M., Hartmann, E., and
Voigt, K. I. (2019). Development of a Risk Framework
for Industry 4.0 in the Context of Sustainability for
Established Manufacturers. Sustainability, 11, 2, 384.
Bresnahan, T. and Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose
technologies ‘Engines of growth’?, Journal of
Econometrics, 65, 1, 83–108.
Bonekamp, L., and Sure, M. (2015). Consequences of
Industry 4.0 on Human Labour and Work Organisation.
Journal of Business and Media Psychology 6, 1, 33–40.
Davies, R., Coole, T., and Smith, A. (2017). Review of socio-
technical considerations to ensure successful
implementation of Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing,
11, 1288-1295.
2019 IFAC MIM
2194
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Julian M. Müller / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 2189–2194

Dubé, L. and Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in information systems Müller, J. M., Kiel, D., and Voigt, K.I. (2018b). What Drives
positivist case research: Current practices, trends, and the Implementation of Industry 4.0? The Role of
recommendations, MIS Quarterly, 8, 4, 597–636. Opportunities and Challenges in the Context of
Edmondson, A. and McManus, S. (2007), Methodological fit Sustainability. Sustainability, 10, 1.
in management field research, Academy of Management Müller, J. M., Maier, L., Veile, J., & Voigt, K. I. (2017).
Review, 32, 4, 1246–1264. Cooperation strategies among SMEs for implementing
Eisenhardt, K. and Graebner, M. (2007). Theory building Industry 4.0. In proceedings of the Hamburg International
from cases: opportunities and challenges, Academy of Conference of Logistics (HICL), 301-318, epubli.
Management Journal, 50, 1, 25–32. Müller, J. M., and Voigt, K. I. (2018). Sustainable Industrial
Gabriel, M., and Pessel, E. (2016). Industry 4.0 and Value Creation in SMEs: A Comparison between Industry
sustainability impacts: critical discussion of sustainability 4.0 and Made in China 2025. International Journal of
aspects with a special focus on future of work and Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green
ecological consequences. Annals of Faculty Engineering Technology, 5, 5, 659-670.
Hunedoara – International Journal of Engineering. 1. 16, Peukert, B., Benecke, S., Clavell, J., Neugebauer, S., Nissen,
131-136. N.F., Uhlmann, E., (2015). Addressing Sustainability and
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., and Wicki, B. (2008). What passes Flexibility in Manufacturing Via Smart Modular Machine
as a rigorous case study?, Strategic Management Journal, Tool Frames to Support Sustainable Value Creation.
29, 13, 1465-1474. Procedia CIRP, 29, 514-519.
Herrmann, C., Schmidt, C., Kurle, D., Blume, S., and Thiede, Schlechtendahl, J., Keinert, M., Kretschmer, F., Lechler, A.
S. (2014). Sustainability in manufacturing and factories of and Verl, A. (2015). Making existing production systems
the future. International Journal of Precision Engineering Industry 4.0-ready. Production Engineering, 9, 1, 143–
and Manufacturing - Green Technology, 1, 4, 283-292. 148.
Holsti, O.R., (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences Stock, T., and Seliger, G. (2016). Opportunities of
and humanities. Addison-Wesley: Reading. Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Procedia
Huber, G. and Power, D. (1985). Retrospective reports of CIRP, 40, 536-541.
strategic-level managers: guidelines for increasing their Veza, I., Mladineo, M. and Gjeldum, N. (2015). Managing
accuracy, Strategic Management Journal, 6, 2, 171–180. Innovative Production Network of Smart Factories, IFAC-
Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., and Ivanova, M. (2016). Schedule PapersOnLine, 48, 3, 555–560.
coordination in cyber-physical supply networks Industry Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: design and methods.
4.0, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(12), 839-844. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., and Helbig, J. (2013). Zezulka, F., Marcon, P., Vesely, I., and Sajdl, O. (2016).
Recommendations for implementing the strategic Industry 4.0–An Introduction in the phenomenon. IFAC-
initiative Industrie 4.0 – Final report of the Industrie 4.0 PapersOnLine, 49(25), 8-12.
Working Group. Communication Promoters Group of the
Industry-Science Research.
Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., and Sharma, R. (2018).
Analysis of the driving and dependence power of barriers
to adopt industry 4.0 in Indian manufacturing industry.
Computers in Industry, 101, 107-119.
Kiel, D., Müller, J. M., Arnold, C., and Voigt, K.-I. (2017).
Sustainable Industrial Value Creation: Benefits and
Challenges of Industry 4.0. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 21, 8.
Lasi, H., Kemper, H, Fettke, P., Feld, T., and Hoffmann, M.
(2014). Industry 4.0, Business and Information Systems
Engineering, 6, 4, 239-242.
Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data
Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Müller, J. M. (2019a). Business model innovation in small-
and medium-sized enterprises: Strategies for industry 4.0
providers and users. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, in press, available online.
Müller, J. M. (2019b). Antecedents to Digital Platform Usage
in Industry 4.0 by Established Manufacturers.
Sustainability, 11, 4, 1121.
Müller, J. M., Buliga, O., and Voigt, K.-I. (2018a). Fortune
favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model
innovations in Industry 4.0, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 132, 2-17.

2244