The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-671X.htm
IJQRM
40,7
1706
Received 11 April 2021
Revised 2 October 2021
20 March 2022
Accepted 18 November 2022
International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
Vol. 40 No. 7, 2023
pp. 1706-1728
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-04-2021-0097
RELIABILITY PAPER
Maintenance 4.0: implementation
challenges and its analysis
Ajith Tom James
Operations and IT Department, ICFAI Business School, Hyderabad, India
Girish Kumar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Delhi Technological University,
New Delhi, India, and
Adnan Qayyum Khan and Mohammad Asjad
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify and analyze the challenges associated with the
implementation of the concept of Maintenance 4.0 in industries.
Design/methodology/approach – The challenges in the implementation of Maintenance 4.0 are identified
through a literature survey and interaction with professionals from the industry and academia. A structural
hierarchy framework that integrates the methodologies of ISM and MICMAC is used for the analysis of
Maintenance 4.0 implementation challenges. The framework establishes the interrelationship among
challenges and segregates them into driving, linkage, dependent and autonomous groups.
Findings – A novel concept of Maintenance 4.0 under the aegis of Industry 4.0 is gaining appreciation
worldwide. However, there are challenges in the adaptation of Maintenance 4.0 concepts among industries.
The various challenges as well as their impact on the objective of implementation of Maintenance 4.0 are
identified.
Practical implications – The practicing engineers, academicians, researchers and the concerned industries
can infer from the results to improve upon the causes of such challenges and promote the implementation of
Maintenance 4.0 most efficiently and effectively.
Originality/value – This paper is a novel, unique and first of its kind that addresses the most contemporary
challenges in the implementation of Maintenance 4.0 concepts in industries.
Keywords Industry 4.0, Maintenance 4.0, Implementation challenges, ISM, MICMAC
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Industry 4.0 (I4.0) originated in Germany in 2013 to revolutionize the manufacturing sector
across the globe (Xu et al., 2018). I4.0 is envisaged as the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Li,
2017). Shafiq et al. (2016) considered I4.0 as a tool that expedites interrelations and
computerization in conventional industrial practices. I4.0 targets the implementation of state-
of-the-art automation technologies in manufacturing and process industries (Trotta and
Garengo, 2018). Masood and Sonntag (2020) foresee that implementation of I4.0 philosophies
will provide information technology-driven large-scale product customization; tracking of
raw materials and products; help communication among raw materials, man, machine and
products; promote human-machine interaction; develop Internet of things (IoT)-enabled
smart factories; evolve novel service and business models and so forth. The entire gamut of
analog and centralized work systems will get transformed into a new paradigm of digital and
Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or
not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of conflicting interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
decentralized platforms in the era of I4.0, with an expected productivity improvement to the Maintenance 4.0
tune of 45–55% (Raj et al., 2020). I4.0 employs cutting-edge technology such as big data implementation
analytics (Dubey et al., 2019), cloud computing (Ghobakhloo, 2020), additive manufacturing
(Gibson, 2014), cybersecurity (Wang and Lu, 2013), automation and robotics (Yadav and
challenges
Singh, 2020), Internet of things (Bag and Pretorius, 2022), cyber-physical systems (Lass and
Gronau, 2020), virtual reality (Masood and Egger, 2019), simulation and modeling (Lasi et al.,
2014) and horizontal and vertical integration (Brettel et al., 2014) in the pursuit of excellence in
industries. 1707
Maintenance is vital for the smooth functioning of any industry as machines can never
work at a high efficiency all the time and necessitate periodic maintenance to function
properly. It is a deciding factor when it comes to the longevity of a machine’s life. Mishra and
Pathak (2012) pointed out that machine malfunctions are the results of poor maintenance,
which would result in huge production losses and hazards. The maintenance philosophies
have been evolved from reactive maintenance to preventive maintenance (PM) or time-based
maintenance (Kaparthi and Bumblauskas, 2020) and reached up to the concept of condition-
based maintenance (CBM) since the beginning of the industrial revolution (Jasiulewicz-
Kaczmarek et al., 2020). With the advent of I4.0, a plethora of benefits are expected that can
radically change many technologies in the industry, which will be equally applicable in
maintenance as well. Identifying the significance of maintenance in industries, McKinsey
(2015) included asset utilization, services and aftersales which are important concepts in
maintenance within eight main value drivers for Industry 4.0. As a result, industries are
contemplating applying the I4.0 concepts in maintenance management on a priority basis
Mosyurchak et al. (2017). With these intentions, a new concept of “Maintenance 4.0” has
emerged for enabling the concept of smart maintenance in industries under the aegis of
Industry 4.0 philosophies. Galar and Kans (2017) defined Maintenance 4.0 as a subset of the
modern manufacturing system incapacitated by self-learning and intelligent machines,
which can predict failures and initiate diagnostics and maintenance actions. According to
Glazer (2019), Maintenance 4.0 involves the application of machine learning and the
involvement of robots in maintenance activities. Bokrantz et al. (2020) came up with a more
precise definition for Maintenance 4.0 by stating that it is an organizational initiative for
effective handling of maintenance in manufacturing organizations through the integration of
cutting-edge digital technologies.
The literature revealed that the technologies in I4.0 have a decisive role in maintenance.
The maintenance and servicing of machines will be more effective with real-time monitoring
of data and integration with I4.0 technologies (Ansari et al., 2018). The accurate and timely
detection of faults or failures before their occurrence is possible through the procedures in the
Industry 4.0 environment that can save costs, reduce downtime and even beyond (Kiel et al.,
2017). Lira and Borsato (2016) anticipate a considerable reduction in machine downtime and
service durations through the implementation of intelligent systems for predictive
maintenance. Chiu et al. (2017) projected the benefits such as tracking of machine health
and prediction of maintenance time through communication between devices via the IoT
platforms in the era of I4.0. Li et al. (2017) suggested technologies that enable automatic
shutdown of the machine before failure through artificial intelligence and predictive
maintenance algorithms (PMA). The industrial IoT enables the connections among physical
objects through the Internet and thus forms cyber-physical systems (CPSs) for sharing global
or local data (Alqahtani et al., 2019). Such communication through CPSs is supportive for
maintenance, and the real-time data gathered through this form the basis of big data analysis
in maintenance (Peres et al., 2018). Big data analysis helps in real-time decision-making for
PM through analytical data-driven algorithms (Subramaniyan et al., 2018). Moreover, big
data analysis is helpful in the management of the logistics of spare parts, which is very critical
in maintenance (Hazen et al., 2014). Since data play a significant role in maintenance activities,
IJQRM the data-driven models are being used in the evolution of PM and utilize tools such as
40,7 statistics, pattern recognition and artificial intelligence (AI) in the I4.0 era (Zonta et al., 2020).
Susto et al. (2018) observed that computer simulations can predict the risk conditions of
machines and compare the health conditions of systems with the maintenance levels based on
the historical data. The concept of cloud technology complements IoT, big data and
simulation by storing critical data as well as real-time computing and becomes an essential
part of CPSs (Fernandez-Carames et al., 2018). Koch et al. (2017) explored the feasibility of
1708 human–robot interaction and collaboration for some selective maintenance tasks. Navas et al.
(2020) pointed out that the emerging additive manufacturing technologies can be adapted
into the manufacturing of spares used in maintenance in minimum lot size with competitive
cost. This would be a highly useful technique when spares are unavailable in the market due
to discontinuity in production by original equipment manufacturer(OEM).
There is a significant increase in the development and use of techniques such as data
mining (DM) and knowledge discovery in databases (KDD) for diagnosis and prognosis of
machines in big industry firms, which include sectors like aerospace, automotive and die
making (Li et al., 2017). Causano and Napoletano (2017) conducted studies about a smart
maintenance model that utilizes I4.0 technologies such as the visual recognition module that
can be used to track around 20 different mechanical parts of an aircraft. Technologies like
augmented reality (AR) are on a rise and actively being incorporated into maintenance
practices. Integration of AR technologies with physical systems, which are either scaled
models or full size, will be helpful for training purposes of maintenance technicians
(D’Anniballe et al., 2020). De Crescenzio et al. (2011) discussed the development of a prototype
system for aircraft maintenance, using AR that consisted of a head-mounted display that
displayed various systems and components to educate maintenance trainees which helped in
reducing the training gap. Sustainable maintenance (SM) will be another futuristic concept
where I4.0 technologies will have leverage. SM can contribute toward minimization of
environmental and social impacts of a system along with the reduction of the life-cycle costs,
enhancement of equipment durability and better asset life-cycle management (Franciosi et al.,
2018). Another upcoming feature in I4.0 based maintenance would be the prediction of the
remaining useful life (RUL) of a system by correlating the data received from a set of sensors
attached to several components (Man and Zhou, 2018; Chen et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020). Within
this paradigm, methods such as long short-term memory (LSTM) will be used that
incorporate technologies such as deep learning (DL) to analyze the operational history of a
system and then predict RUL (Bruneo and De Vita, 2019). The concept of digital twin will be
utilized in the Maintenance 4.0 environment for condition monitoring of highly critical
systems, where there is high risk (Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek et al., 2020). Moreover, Nordal and
El-Thalji (2021) predicted that state-of-the-art developments in robots, drones and wearable
devices would enhance smart maintenance in the future.
Based on the literature review, it can be concluded that under the spectrum of
Maintenance 4.0; futuristic concepts such as predictive maintenance, proactive maintenance,
remote or tele maintenance, and self-maintenance would be the future of maintenance.
Predictive maintenance practices are expected to alleviate the machine downtime from 30%
to 50% and expand the operational life within the 20%–40% range (McKinsey, 2015).
Proactive maintenance is slated to be a game-changer in Maintenance 4.0 as it targets
monitoring of the failure causes rather than symptoms (Fusko et al., 2018). The novel concept
of remote maintenance is majorly supported by technologies like AR (Aschenbrenner et al.,
2016; Masoni et al., 2017) which, when integrated with predictive maintenance, can bring
down the maintenance cost to the tune of 40% (McKinsey, 2015). Another futuristic concept of
self-maintenance involves a steady and noninvasive condition monitoring process (Dinardo
et al., 2018) that employs mainly robotics to accomplish high-risk tasks (Seneviratne et al.,
2018). Roy et al. (2016) also projected reductions in life-cycle cost of equipment on account of
the application of autonomous maintenance. A case study conducted by Kandemir and Celik Maintenance 4.0
(2020) over the human errors in ship maintenance revealed that implementation of implementation
Maintenance 4.0 concepts can reduce the incidences of human error probability by 83%.
Amidst all the futuristic benefits, many challenges fall in the way of implementation of
challenges
Maintenance 4.0 practices in industries. Silvestri et al. (2020) opined that the road ahead for
implementation of Maintenance 4.0 is still vague and less traveled and cited some issues for
the same. Therefore, this paper is an attempt to identify the challenges for the implementation
of Maintenance 4.0 technologies in industries based on the issues raised by Silvestri et al. 1709
(2020) as well as detailed literature and industrial visits. This is followed by the categorization
of these challenges using structural methodologies.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 identifies and describes various challenges for
the implementation of Maintenance 4.0 practices in industrial maintenance. Section 3
explains the methodologies of interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and Matriced
Impactscroises-multiplication appliq
u eanclass-Ment (MICMAC). In section 4, the
methodologies are implemented for prioritization of the challenges followed by its
segregation into driver, linkage, dependent and autonomous challenges groups. The
results are discussed in section 5, and conclusions are given in section 6.

2. Identification of challenges in the implementation of Maintenance 4.0

The above discussions revealed that very limited work has been done for the identification of
challenges in implementing Maintenance 4.0 technologies. The various challenges are
identified through literature and interaction with industry experts. The following subsections
elaborate on those in detail.

2.1 Organizational challenges

“Digital transformation” is a recently coined term that is being used by consultancy
companies that provide a roadmap toward implementing I4.0 era technologies in their client’s
firms. However, there are still many companies that are at their primitive levels of digital
transformation and have little knowledge about this. A study conducted by Flores et al. (2018)
revealed that only 17% of the companies had a fully developed strategy for implementation of
Maintenance 4.0. Badri et al. (2018) blamed it on the lack of corporate culture in their decision-
making based on data or evidence for the implementation of Maintenance 4.0. Organizational
challenges include the integration of all stakeholders including OEMs, end-users, technology
support providers and other service providers for accomplishing the implementation of
Maintenance 4.0 (Badri et al., 2018). Kumar and Galar (2018) cited organizational challenges in
the implementation of Maintenance 4.0 mainly in four dimensions that cover enterprise
resources management-related aspects like organizational restructuring of people involved in
maintenance; planning of resources such as spares, material, tools, management of
information and knowledge; and handling of heterogeneous organizations. Research by
(Tortorella et al., 2021) revealed that many organizations are unaware of the prospectus of
Industry 4.0 and are unable to foresee the financial benefits of its implementation.

2.2 Technician skill challenges

I4.0 implementation has made revolutionary changes in the manufacturing systems that
raised the expectations from the workers, which necessitates certain skill sets among the
technicians and operators working in the industries (Vinodh and Wankhede, 2021). This is
applicable for Maintenance 4.0 as well. The conventional troubleshooting and maintenance
activities were largely anchored on the experience of skilled maintenance technicians.
However, Windelband (2017) pointed out that contemporary I4.0 technologies have
IJQRM developed some cyber-physical assistance systems to support skilled workers in industrial
40,7 maintenance. This reiterates the fact that maintenance activities cannot be automated
completely, and it still demands skilled manpower. However, the existing skill sets are
inadequate to cope with the technologies of I4.0, which poses a serious challenge in its
implementation in Maintenance 4.0. Zolotov
a et al. (2020) suggested the transformation of
operators to “Operator 4.0” capabilities with enhanced physical, sensory and cognitive
skills. The potential challenges for skilled maintenance technicians include the processing
1710 of huge data for maintenance processes, including its real-time processing. However, proper
perception and evaluation of data without errors under the complexities of systems is a
daunting challenge for technicians (Windelband, 2017). Moreover, the author also
cautioned that the technician skill needs to be elevated to such a level where he/she has
to take spontaneous data-based decisions, double up as a data analyst and thereby
transform CBM paradigm into the modern concept of integrated prospective maintenance.
A study conducted by Windelband (2014) advocated for skilled technicians having multi-
domain knowledge, including information technology with adequate skills in router
structure, firewall technology, IP address allocation of CPS components and their
amalgamation with manufacturing execution system and knowledge in electronics and
mechanical systems to undertake maintenance activities in Maintenance 4.0 environment.
Additionally, competencies in network technology, microwave technology and
transmission technology are indispensable for interpreting live images of the machine
and their evaluation for fault diagnosis and troubleshooting with new assistance systems
such as sensor technology/actuating elements. Another challenge pointed out by
Windelband (2017) is the proficiency level required by technicians in the use of user
assistance systems such as mobile apps and portals. Currently, industries are lacking
technicians with proficiencies in digital technologies (Roda et al., 2018) and knowledge
management (C
arcel-Carrasco and C
arcel-Carrasco, 2021). A survey conducted by Flores
et al. (2018) among 76 companies from various backgrounds such as manufacturing,
automotive and IT revealed that 18% of these organizations still outsource the task of data
analysis on account of lack of human skills. Hence, several researchers (Stojki
c et al., 2015;
Windelband, 2017; Farsi and Zio, 2019) suggested amendments in vocational education
smart training as the solution to develop appropriate maintenance technicians for
Maintenance 4.0 environment.

2.3 Cybersecurity challenges

The massive exchange of data that happens as a result of the intricate interconnectedness of
devices in manufacturing in the I4.0 paradigm broadens the scope of cybersecurity as it gives
new ways to cyber-criminals to exploit such data for their interest. Devices in many plants
run for extended periods without any anti-virus tools or security updates. The devices such as
laptops and USB (Universal System Bus) drives that get taken in and out of facilities become
vulnerable to malware when not checked properly (Benias and Markopoulos, 2017). Security
and privacy affect all big data storage and processing, and the current practice of industries
using third-party services to host important data and perform critical operations brings a
huge challenge of dynamic data monitoring and security protection (Ji et al., 2012). Alqahtani
et al. (2019) cautioned that the IoT capabilities have a side effect of data explosion that leads to
issues such as data security, data privacy, data center networking and management of data
storage. Roy et al. (2016) argued for the requirement of robust cybersecurity systems for the
maintenance of critical systems for both hardware and software. Roda et al. (2018) pointed out
that many companies across the world are reluctant for implementing Maintenance 4.0 on
account of a lack of trust in contemporary cybersecurity technologies in the effective
protection of data.
2.4 IoT implementation challenges Maintenance 4.0
IoT as a technology is currently on the rise, but needs to be empowered with more capabilities implementation
that may allow it to reach the ultimate objective of digitalization of maintenance procedures.
Silvestri et al. (2020) observed that machine-to-machine communication through IoT would
challenges
require retrofitting of the existing hardware or acquisition of new instruments. The authors
also cited the development of communication protocols among the machines as a pertinent
challenge. Moreover, the design of sensors and their positioning at strategic locations for
online condition monitoring of parameters for predictive maintenance are challenging tasks. 1711
Another significant challenge that IoT faces is its lack of time-sensitive data analysis wherein
a machine can provide the real-time condition monitoring of a machine or a system of
machines (Mohammadi et al., 2018). The current machine-to-machine (M2M) and machine-to-
human (M2H) interaction technology are still in their nascent stage of development. This
communication technology needs to be further developed to better accommodate M2M
communication between heterogeneous IoT devices that receive, record and transmit data to
avoid network congestion (Roy et al., 2016). Hence, IoT needs to be supported by data science
for a more intelligent perception of the industry environment and better human-to-machine
interaction. The software that is used for monitoring data taken from sensors that utilize IoT
needs to be simplified so that it can be easily handled by factory workers and machine
maintenance teams. Logistics, which include spare parts and warehouse management, are
currently in need of techniques derived from IoT such as prognostics and health management
(PHM) for efficient functioning.

2.5 Health and Safety Challenges

The complexity of activities is constantly increasing on account of I4.0 production systems
(Waschneck et al., 2017), and maintenance is not an exception. Badri et al. (2018) observed that
there would be an increase in work content in terms of task varieties, task duration,
uncertainties and exposure as well as the requirement of overtimes, rush orders and so forth.
These would induce workplace hazards, including psychosocial effects. The psychosocial
problems are largely attributed to fear of job losses and insecurities (Moktadir et al., 2018;
Kumar et al., 2020). Silvestri et al. (2020) cautioned that the migration toward Maintenance 4.0
must be gradual to get the technicians acquainted with the novel tools, otherwise there is a
potential risk of harm in several dimensions. There will be reluctance from old workers, who
are against the changes and use of new technology (Katiraee et al., 2019), which can adversely
affect safety as well. Siemieniuch et al. (2015) raised the concerns of ergonomics and human
factors in the development of cyber-physical systems. Another futuristic concept in I4.0 is
that of “cobots,” where robots would be working along with human beings for manipulating
tough and dangerous tasks. Cobots would have some scopes in industrial maintenance. Beetz
et al. (2015) expressed their concerns in developing safety-conscious robots which can identify
the human actions that can injure or sabotage the safety of workers and advocated for
developing computer programs that enable the robots with reasoning skills to discriminate
the intentions of operators working in the vicinity. However, Silvestri et al. (2020) suggested
for regulated use of robots in maintenance, which is a highly human-centric and supervised
activity. It is already mentioned previously that AR can revolutionize the maintenance in I4.0
environment. Cristians and Methven (2017) observed that AR technology can explore hidden
structures within the real-world environment, and this capacity is very much helpful in
complex maintenance procedures. However, Roy et al. (2016) cautioned that extended
utilization of these technologies by maintenance workers would adversely affect their health.
Silvestri et al. (2020) explored more on the above aspects and observed that mobile systems of
AR are usually heavy, which can be strenuous for maintenance technicians and its prolonged
use can cause strain in the eyes. They also raised the pros and cons of wearing AR glasses by
IJQRM technicians who are already using prescription glasses. Silvestri et al. (2020) highlighted that
40,7 some smart devices used in Maintenance 4.0 are not a hand-free technology, which can hinder
the operator activity and hence adversely affect safety. Hence, the authors urged for a good
human-automation symbiosis through the implementation of smart workplaces with user-
friendly human-computer interfaces.

1712 2.6 Big data-related challenges

A common misconception for PM, in general, is that more data would yield better results.
However, this is untrue when it comes to big data. Keeping a large amount of data can cost a
lot in terms of acquiring, storing and analyzing. Moreover, the extraction of valuable data or
smart data is cumbersome. Real data that consist of normal and abnormal data are difficult to
extrapolate from a machine’s server, as not many machines have such data recording
instrumentations. Consequently, there is a shortage of real data, which will make it difficult
for predictive maintenance machines to operate efficiently as they require real data. There
exists a two-way relation between IoT and big data where IoT is a producer and generator of
data, while big data analytics are in need to improve the precision in IoT services and
processes. There are significant challenges in this domain as it calls for the need for a new
class of analytics (Mohammadi et al., 2018). The high volume, high-velocity assets of
information, data diversity and types, uncertainties in the data accuracy, speed of data
collection, rate of decision-making based on the collected data and lack of quantitative studies
to understand the complexities of data are the challenges associated with big data in
maintenance (Roy et al., 2016). Silvestri et al. (2020) pointed out that data quality and its
representation have a profound impact on AI-driven systems. They stressed the importance
of the knowledge and skills of data scientists in this regard and lamented that such skills are
unavailable at many organizations which pose a serious challenge. Deep learning (DL) is
another contemporary technology that has great potential to maximize the working
efficiency of IoT and big data systems. However, the requirement of large pre-processed raw
data is necessary for the proper functioning of DL and the generation of optimal results
(Dalzochio et al., 2020; Mohammadi et al., 2018). Many maintenance data are inaccurate,
incomplete and unstructured, having missing values and no annotations (Kumar and Galar,
2018) which serve as “noise” and derail the concept of DL. Data acquisition is a process
through which data are acquired from a machine by use of various sensors. Functions such as
data fusion and signal conditioning are also involved in data preprocessing. For effective data
acquisition, decision-making algorithms need to be developed to identify the systems/parts of
a machine to be monitored and why. However, the development of such algorithms is costly
due to excess data or data which are not relevant for the self-maintenance of a machine (Singh
et al., 2014). With the advent of big data, large quantities of data are being generated which
are too big to handle for the Traditional Relational Database Management Systems
(RDBMSs), and it becomes more difficult to make their visual models such as bar charts, line
diagrams, tables and animations of such enormous data (Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek et al., 2020).
This necessitates the development of technologies that can help generate more precise
conceptual, logical and physical data models that can handle the increasing complexity of
data in maintenance (Ribeiro et al., 2015). Another challenge regarding BD is the processing of
data even in a cloud-based environment because of the less area processing rate of data.
Apart from these, analysis of big data sets in maintenance necessitates the development of
exclusive data analysis solutions (Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek et al., 2021).

2.7 Cloud computing and storage challenges

Lack of privacy features is the most significant challenge in this field of cloud computing or
cloud storage, as the cloud servers are often operated and provided by third-party providers.
In the I4.0 era, company managers are looking more toward technologies that can help assess Maintenance 4.0
the health conditions of machines, getting information from them, getting the results of data implementation
analysis quickly and sharing that information among branches of the same company all to be
done in real time. However, cloud computing is yet not as capable of satisfying such needs in
challenges
this paradigm Yen et al. (2014). Current cloud technologies are not fit to satisfy the
continuously growing amount of data influx in terms of capacity and transfer speeds for big
data storage and management. Moreover, cloud computing of big data takes much time,
which may hamper some decision-making in maintenance. 1713

2.8 Cost challenges

Another challenge is the higher cost involved in the development of PHM algorithms. There is
a need for great investments by companies to acquire instrumentations, software and a
trained workforce to be able to benefit from this I4.0 technology (Compare et al., 2019). The
uncertainties regarding payback of the huge initial investment for digital transformations as
well as the uncertainty of the effects of total cost of ownership (TCO) of modern systems/
equipment and other instrumentations procured for upgradation of the infrastructure for
Maintenance 4.0 prevent many firms to invest in Maintenance 4.0 (Roda et al., 2018).
Industries are currently retrofitting the existing machines to adapt to the technologies of I4.0.
However, Pettitt and Westfall (2016) pointed out that the retrofitting cost of old machines
following the technology and safety standards of I4.0 would be huge.

2.9 Reliability and availability challenges

The reliability and availability of hardware and software systems in I4.0 are very crucial that
affect the maintenance as well as the overall safety of the plant. The concerns over the
reliability of big data, networks, cobots, cyber-physical systems, AI and simulation models as
well as simulation accuracy for its implementation in plant maintenance and safety have been
raised by few researchers (Badri et al., 2018; Silvestri et al., 2020; Forcina et al., 2021). Farsi and
Zio (2019) raised concerns over the reliability and availability of AR/VR tools used in
maintenance and also discussed human reliability role in maintenance of hardware and
software systems in I4.0. The authors urged reliability engineers to investigate the above
issues seriously for foolproof implementation of Maintenance 4.0.

3. Description of hybrid methodology

This section explains the methodologies used for the classification of the challenges that have
already been identified in section 2. ISM methodology has been deployed for classifying these
challenges in terms of their power of influence, followed by the MICMAC analysis which
segregates and prioritizes the challenges based on driving and dependence power. Figure 1
shows the diagrammatic representation of the research methodology employed.

3.1 Interpretive structural modeling (ISM)

ISM is one of the methods applied to develop hierarchical relationships among various
components that are interlinked with each other (Watson, 1978). ISM is a technique where
direct- and indirect-related elements or variables can be brought under a definite
classification using a systematic modeling procedure. The intricate relations between the
multitudes of variables can also be put forth in simple terms by utilizing the ISM approach
(Attri et al., 2013). Its potential can be utilized in analyzing and solving complex problems,
decision-making and identifying relationships among variables that make up a problem
(Sharma et al., 2013). The ISM methodology has been deployed to solve a plethora of issues
that afflict the industry (Karadayi-Usta, 2019; Kamble et al., 2018; Pati et al., 2016). With these
IJQRM Identification of challenges for
40,7 Literature Review
Maintenance 4.0

Expert Judgment Pairwise comparison of challenges

P
1714
Structural Modeling through ISM

Figure 1.
Research methodology MICMAC Analysis

advantages, the ISM methodology is utilized for studying the relationship among the
challenges in the implementation of Maintenance 4.0 in the current industrial scenario.
These challenges will be scored based on their relation and intensity of influence with other
challenges, and this information is utilized to arrange the challenges into a hierarchical
structure through a digraph model. The stepwise procedure of the same is illustrated below
(Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994; Kumar et al., 2021).
Step 1: Identify the challenges
The first part of this method needs the identification of a set of components that are
interlinked with each other to a defined environment that makes a system of interest. The
next part of this stage of the analysis needs an inter-relation among these components
through pair-wise comparison with the help of domain experts’ judgment.
Stage 2: Development of the structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM)
In this step, the structural self-interaction (SSI) matrix is developed based on pairwise
comparisons made at stage 1. The following symbols are used in the SSI matrix.
(1) V, if the challenge “a” will influence the challenge “b.”
(2) A, if the challenge “a” is influenced by the challenge “b.”
(3) X, if both the challenges “a” and “b” influence each other.
(4) O, if there is no relation between challenges “a” and “b.”
Step 3: Development of reachability matrix and check for transitivity
The SSIM is transformed into the reachability matrix by replacing all the symbols with
binary values 0 and 1 as summarized in Table 1. Further transitivity is incorporated in the
reachability matrix to ensure the indirect relationship among the challenges. The transitivity

(i, j) entry in SSI matrix (i, j) entry in reachability matrix (j, i) entry in reachability matrix
Table 1.
Notations for the V 1 0
transformation of SSI A 0 1
matrix into X 1 1
reachability matrix O 0 0
of the contextual relation is a basic assumption made in ISM. It states that if a challenge (or Maintenance 4.0
variable) “i” is related to “j,” and “j” is related to “k,” then “i” is necessarily related to “k.” implementation
Step 4: Partition the reachability matrix into different hierarchical levels challenges
The reachability matrix is further used to obtain the antecedent and reachability sets for each
challenge (Warfield, 1974). The reachability set considers the challenges themselves and
other challenges which it may help to achieve, whereas the antecedent set considers the
challenges themselves and the other challenges which may help in achieving them. Further, 1715
an intersection set is obtained from the antecedent and reachability sets. The challenges for
which reachability and intersection set are the same is considered as the top-level challenge in
the ISM approach. Once the top-level challenge is determined, it is separated from the other
challenges. Following a similar process, the next level of challenges is identified. The iteration
process is continued until all the challenges are leveled. These levels help in constructing the
digraph and the final ISM model.
Stage 5: Conical matrix formation followed by the development of a structural relationship
in terms of digraph
The reachability matrix is converted into the conical matrix, in which the elements are
arranged according to their level obtained in step 4. The conical matrix is further used to
develop the digraph model based on their interrelationships.

3.2 MICMAC analysis

MICMAC is a methodology that is primarily used for the rank ordering of factors based on
their driving and dependence power (Kumar and Sharma, 2018). MICMAC analysis is an
important tool that is used in solving industry problems (Sindhwani and Malhotra, 2017). The
ability of MICMAC analysis to strip lengthy variables of their complexities along with
providing a clear structured solution coupled with the hierarchical arrangement provided
through ISM makes it a highly preferred tool to employ in this study.
MICMAC analysis utilizes multiplication properties of matrices and helps in analyzing the
dependence of the variables. MICMAC is also known as the driving and dependence diagram.
Two types of power sets are taken into consideration in MICMAC analysis: drive power and
dependence power. The sum of cell elements with a value of 1 in the row for a particular
challenge in the final reachability matrix will give the driving power, while the sum of the cell
element consisting of the value of “1” in each column gives the dependence power for the
corresponding challenges. Based on these factors, the challenges identified can be classified
into four categories which are discussed below (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994; Sindhwani and
Malhotra, 2017; Kumar and Sharma, 2018; Kumar et al., 2021).
Autonomous challenges: These include the challenges which are independent of other
challenges and hence have a low dependence power along with meager driving power. They
are of little significance.
Linkage challenges: As the name suggests, linkage challenges act as a link between those
challenges that are of minor importance and those which are most important. Hence, they
have a high dependence and high driving power and play an important role.
Dependent challenges: These are the challenges that depend on other challenges; they,
therefore, have a high dependence power and low driving power. They are usually located in
the uppermost strata of the ISM model.
Independent challenges: The challenges that do not depend on any other challenges are
classified under this category. they have extremely low influence from others, and hence have
a strong driving power and low dependence power. They can be found at the lower most part
of the ISM model.
IJQRM 4. Implementation of the methodology
40,7 In ISM methodology, initially, pairwise comparisons are made between the challenges
identified in Section 2. This is accomplished through the opinion of experts in the domain. A
team of experts, including professionals from different industries and faculty from academic
institutions, had been consulted. The industry experts were highly experienced in the domain
of production, planning and maintenance, with their experience varying from 10 to 20 years.
The experts were from the manager to the general manager levels. From academia, the
1716 professors specialized in the field of industrial engineering in general and maintenance
management, in particular, were contacted.

4.1 Development of structural self-interaction matrix

To develop the structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM), the experts were approached and
were briefed about the objective of the research. The feedback provided by the experts was
recorded as responses to a questionnaire that was specifically designed for this purpose.
Their responses were collected in symbolic form as discussed in step 2 of Section 3.1. For
facilitating the ISM modeling, the challenges are symbolized as in Table 2 for their easy
interpretation.
Based on expert opinion, the SSIM is developed and the same is presented in Table 3. Each
element in the matrix represents the interrelationship between challenges. For example,
technician skill challenges (I2) influence the cost challenges (I8), as more monetary resources
are required to train or recruit the maintenance personnel. Therefore, the symbol “V” is
assigned to their relationship against cell (2, 2). Also, the organizational challenges (I1) can be
overcome if issues of the IoT implementation challenges (I4) are addressed. Therefore, the
symbol “A” is assigned to the relationship between them against the matrix cell (1, 4).

Sr. No Challenges Notation

1 Organizational challenges I1
2 Technician skill challenges I2
3 Cybersecurity challenges I3
4 IoT implementation challenges I4
5 Health and safety challenges I5
Table 2. 6 Big data-related challenges I6
Challenges for 7 Cloud computing and storage challenges I7
implementation of 8 Cost challenges I8
Maintenance 4.0 9 Reliability and availability challenges I9

S.
No Name of challenges I9 I8 I7 I6 I5 I4 I3 I2 I1

I1 Organizational challenges A A A A A A A A –
I2 Technician skill challenges V V V O V O O –
I3 Cybersecurity challenges O O V V O V –
I4 IoT implementation challenges V O X X O –
Table 3. I5 Health and safety challenges V V O O –
Structural self- I6 Big data-related challenges V V X –
interaction matrix I7 Cloud computing and storage challenges O V –
(SSIM) of the I8 Cost challenges A –
challenges I9 Reliability and availability challenges –
 Further, the IoT implementation challenges (I4) and big data-related challenges (I6) Maintenance 4.0
mutually influence each other at the same level, that is, they are dependent on each other, so implementation
their relationship is denoted by “X” as shown against matrix cell (4, 4). As there is no direct
relationship between challenge I3 (cybersecurity challenges) and challenge I5 (health and
challenges
safety challenges), it is denoted by “O” as shown against matrix cell (3, 5).
On similar lines, other elements of SSIM are derived and the entire matrix developed, as
shown in Table 3.
1717
4.2 Reachability matrix
The SSIM is transformed into the initial reachability matrix by replacing all the symbols with
binary values (0 and 1) as mentioned in Table 1. The initial reachability matrix (IRM) is
developed, which is presented in Table 4. The logic behind the entries in the reachability
matrix is depicted through some examples as follows.
(1) If the cell (i, j) value is “V” in the SSIM, then the (i, j)th and the (j, i)th values are
assigned as 1 and 0, respectively, in the IRM. As the element (2, 5) in SSIM (Table 3) is
V, the corresponding values for IRM are 1 at cell (2, 5) and 0 in cell (5, 2).
(2) If the cell (i, j) value is “A” in the SSIM, then the (i, j)th and the (j, i)th values are
assigned as 0 and 1, respectively, in the IRM. As the element (1, 9) in SSIM (Table 3) is
A, the corresponding values for IRM are 0 at cell (1, 9) and 1 in cell (9, 1).
(3) If the cell (i, j) value is “X” in the SSIM, then (i, j)th and the (j, i)th values are assigned as
1 and 1, respectively, in the IRM. As the element (4, 6) in SSIM (Table 3) is X, the
corresponding values for IRM are 1 at cell (4, 6) and 1 in cell (6, 4).
(4) If the cell (i, j) value is “O” in the SSIM, then (i, j)th and the (j, i)th values are assigned as
0 and 0, respectively, in the IRM. As the element (5, 6) in SSIM (Table 3) is O, the
corresponding values for IRM are 0 at cell (5, 6) and 0 in cell (6, 5).
On similar lines, other values of matrix elements are computed, and the complete reachability
matrix is shown in Table 4.
Following the discussion of Section 3, the transitivity is incorporated in the IRM to obtain
the final reachability matrix. For example, in the SSIM (Table 2), there is no direct relationship
between challenge 3 and challenge 8. Hence, in the IRM, the cell entry of (3, 8) is 0. But on
examining the transitive links in SSIM, it is found that challenge 3 impacts challenge 7, and
challenge 7 impacts challenge 8. Hence, as per transitive property, it can be inferred that
challenge 3 has an impact on challenge 8. Thus, in the final reachability matrix (shown in
Table 5), the cell entry (3, 8) is 1. Following this process, other entries are changed to

Challenges I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 Driving power

I1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
I2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 6
I3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5
I4 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5
I5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3
I6 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
I7 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 5
I8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Table 4.
I9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 Initial reachability
Dependence power 9 1 1 4 2 4 5 6 5 matrix
IJQRM Challenges I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 Driving power
40,7
I1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
I2 1 1 0 0 1 1* 1 1 1 7
I3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1* 0 6
I4 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5
I5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4
1718 I6 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
I7 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 5
Table 5. I8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Final reachability I9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
matrix Dependence power 9 1 1 4 2 5 5 7 5

incorporate the effect of transitivity, which is denoted by a “*” mark in Table 5. The final
reachability matrix constructed is shown in Table 5.

4.3 Level partitions

From the final reachability matrix (Table 5), the reachability set and antecedent set for every
challenge are identified. The reachability set consists of the challenges themselves and other
challenges which are reachable. The reachable challenges are the ones having value “1” at the
intersection of their column and the row corresponding to the considered challenges. For
example, the reachability set for challenge I1 is I1 only, as the value of cells on other columns is
0. Similarly, the antecedent set consists of the challenges themselves and other challenges
which may reach the challenges; that is, every row that consists of the value of “1” in the
column of the considered challenge is included in the antecedent set. For example, the
antecedent set for I4 consists of elements I3, I4, I6, I7, as their values are “1” in the column of I4.
On similar lines, the reachability set and antecedent sets are identified for other challenges
too. Also, for each challenge, the inspection set of the reachability set and antecedent set is
obtained. The complete list of the reachability set, antecedent set and intersection set for all
challenges is given in Table 6.
Referring to Table 6 for challenge I1, since the reachability and the intersection set are the
same, it is a top-level challenge. Since challenge I1 is identified as the top-level challenge, it is
separated from the other challenges. Similarly, the next level of challenges is identified
(Table 7), and the iteration process is continued until all the challenges are leveled. The
identified levels for all the challenges are listed in Table 8. These levels are further used to
construct the digraph in the following sections.

Challenges Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

I1 I1 I1, I2, I3, I4, I5, I6, I7, I8, I9 I1 Level 1

I2 I1, I2, I5, I6, I7, I8, I9 I2 I2
I3 I1, I3, I4, I6, I7, I8 I3 I3
I4 I1, 14, I6, I7, I9 I3, I4, I6, I7 I4, I6, I7
I5 I1, I5, I8, I9 I2, I5 I5
I6 I1, I4, I6, I7, I8, I9 I2, I3, I4, I6, I7 I4, I6, I7
Table 6. I7 I1, I4, I6, I7, I8 I2, I3, I4, I6, I7, I9 I4, I6, I7
Challenges level– I8 I1, I8 I2, I3, I5, I6, I7, I8, I9 I8
iteration 1 I9 I1, I8, I9 I2, I5, I4, I6, I9 I9
4.4 Conical matrix Maintenance 4.0
A conical matrix is used to establish the relationship between the challenges, and this implementation
information is further utilized to develop the digraph model. A conical matrix is constructed
by partitioning the reachability matrix by rearranging the challenges according to their level.
challenges
All the challenges having the same levels are clubbed together. The conical matrix developed
is shown in Table 9. From the conical matrix (Table 9), the structural model is developed,
where the relationship between elements “i” and “j” is shown by an arrow that points from “i”
to “j.” 1719

4.5 Structural relationship

Using the level partition matrix (Table 8) and conical matrix (Table 9), a digraph (ISM model)
as shown in Figure 2 is developed that shows the position of various challenges.

Challenges Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

I2 I2, I5, I6, I7, I8, I9 I2 I2

I3 I3, I4, I6, I7, I8 I3 I3
I4 14, I6, I7, I9 I3, I4, I6, I7 I4, I6, I7
I5 I5, I8, I9 I2, I5 I5
I6 I4, I6, I7, I8, I9 I2, I3, I4, I6, I7 I4, I6, I7
I7 I4, I6, I7, I8 I2, I3, I4, I6, I7, I9 I4, I6, I7 Table 7.
I8 I8 I2, I3, I5, I6, I7, I8, I9 I8 Level 2 Challenges level –
I9 I8, I9 I2, I5, I4, I6, I9 I9 Iteration 2

Challenges Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

I1 I1 I1, I2, I3, I4, I5, I6, I7, I8, I9 I1 Level 1

I2 I1, I2, I5, I6, I7, I8, I9 I2 I2 Level 6
I3 I1, I3, I4, I6, I7, I8 I3 I3 Level 6
I4 I1, 14, I6, I7, I9 I3, I4, I6, I7 I4, I6, I7 Level 5
I5 I1, I5, I8, I9 I2, I5 I5 Level 4
I6 I1, I4, I6, I7, I8, I9 I2, I3, I4, I6, I7 I4, I6, I7 Level 5
I7 I1, I4, I6, I7, I8 I2, I3, I4, I6, I7, I9 I4, I6, I7 Level 5 Table 8.
I8 I1, I8 I2, I3, I5, I6, I7, I8, I9 I8 Level 2 Level partitions for
I9 I1,I8, I9 I2, I5, I4, I6, I9 I9 Level 3 challenges

Levels Challenges I1 I8 I5 I9 I4 I7 I6 I3 I2

Level 1 I1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Level 2 I8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Level 3 I9 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Level 4 I5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Level 5 I4 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
I7 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
I6 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
Level 6 I3 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Table 9.
I2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Conical matrix
IJQRM Organizational Challenges (I1)
Level 1
40,7
Cost Challenges (I8)
Level 2

Reliability and
aavailabilityy challenges (I9)
1720 Level 3

Health and Safety

Challenges (I5)
Level 4

Cloud computing
IoT implementation Big data related and storage
challenges (I4) challenges (I6) challenges (I7)
Level 5

Figure 2.
ISM model–structural
relationship between Cyber security Technician skill challenges
Challenges (I3) (I2)
challenges
Level 6

The ISM model developed in this research work depicts that cybersecurity challenges (I3) and
technician skill challenges (I2) are the significant challenges in the adoption and
implementation of Maintenance 4.0 in any organization as it comes at level 6 (Bottom one),
that is, at the base of the ISM hierarchy. Organizational challenges (I1) appear on the top
hierarchy, which shows the effectiveness of Maintenance 4.0 depends on it.
Cybersecurity (I3) and technician skill (I2) challenges at the lowest level will create hassles
in the implementation of IoT (I4), big data (I6) and cloud computing and storage (I7)-related
technologies for the adoption of Industry 4.0 in general and Maintenance 4.0 in particular.
These three challenges at level 5 should be addressed simultaneously to achieve the desired
goals of Maintenance 4.0.
Next in the hierarchy is the health and safety challenges (I5) which should be tackled
holistically across the organization among different departments. Further, the reliability and
availability challenges (I9) can be effectively addressed when above-stated challenges are
handled properly. Else, it may be difficult to achieve the performance goals of any
organization.
The implementation of the reliability and availability goals (I9) involves a higher cost that
can be achieved by addressing cost challenges (I8). It is the next important challenge to
overcome to achieve the overall objectives of the firm that subsequently lead to
organizational challenges (I1).

4.6 MICMAC
The MICMAC analysis is performed to categorize the challenges based on the relationship
between driving power and dependence power. The driving and the dependence power are
evaluated as per the procedure detailed in section 3.2. For example, the driving power for
challenge I1 is “1,” which is the sum of cell elements with a value of “1” in the row
corresponding to the challenge (I1) in the final reachability matrix. The dependence power for
challenge I1 is 9, which is the sum of the cell element with a value of 1 in the column
corresponding to the challenge (I1) as given in Table 5.
 On similar lines, the driving and the dependence power of the remaining challenges are Maintenance 4.0
evaluated. The results are summarized in Table 10. implementation
The values of driving and dependence powers as obtained in Table 10 are depicted on an
X-Y plot as shown in Figure 3, which is used for analyzing the results of MICMAC. Figure 3 is
challenges
divided into 4 regions consisting of the autonomous, dependent, linkage and independent
challenges following the discussion in Section 3.2. The clusters obtained from MICMAC
analysis are tabulated in Table 11.
The results from the MICMAC analysis are discussed below. 1721
(1) In Figure 3, the driving challenges observed in MICMAC analysis are technician skill
challenges (I2), cybersecurity challenges (I3) and IoT implementation challenges (I4).
From this, it can be concluded that if an industry wishes to implement Maintenance
4.0, then it will have to overcome these challenges effectively and efficiently.
(2) Big data-related challenges (I6), and cloud computing and storage challenges (I7) fall
in the category of linkage challenges with strong driving and dependence powers.
They form the backbone for the implementation of Maintenance 4.0, but their
adoption will depend on IoT implementation, cybersecurity and technical skills in the
industry.

Challenge name Dependence power Driving power

Organizational challenges (I1) 9 1

Technician skill challenges (I2)
Cybersecurity challenges (I3)
IoT implementation challenges (I4)
Health and safety challenges (I5)
Big data-related challenges (I6)
Cloud computing and storage challenges (I7)
Cost challenges (I8)
Reliability and availability challenges (I9)
1 7
1 6
4 5
2 4
5 6
5 5 Table 10.
7 2 Driving and
5 3 dependence power

Figure 3.
Distribution of
challenges – driving
power and dependence
power plot
IJQRM (3) Organizational challenges (I1), cost challenges (I8) and reliability and availability
40,7 challenges (I9) appear under the dependent category. These challenges are weak
drivers but strongly depend on one another. Hence, the organizations need
restructuring in their hierarchies and policies as well as find resources to meet the
cost challenges.
(4) The autonomous challenges have weak driving and weak dependent powers. Health
1722 and safety challenges (I5) fall under this category and will not have much significance
over other challenges.
A key finding of this research is that “technician skill challenges (I2),” “cybersecurity
challenges (I3)” and “IoT implementation challenges (I4)” are the primary inhibitors of
Maintenance 4.0. These are strong drivers and may be treated as the root causes of all the
other challenges. In addition to the big data-related challenges (I6), cloud computing and
storage challenges (I7) fall in the category of linkage challenges, with strong driving
and dependence powers. Organizational challenges (I1), cost challenges (I8) and reliability and
availability challenges (I9) appear under the dependent category. These challenges are weak
drivers but strongly depend on one another. On the other hand, health and safety challenges
(I5) have weak driving and weak dependent powers and can be categorized under the
category of autonomous challenges.
From the digraph, it can be seen that “organizational challenges (I1)” is on the top of the
hierarchy, while “cost challenges” is the next important one and placed on level 2. The cost
challenges can directly/indirectly be controlled by the system performance measures (like
reliability and availability). Higher the desired availability, higher may be the cost; in other
words, cost challenges can only be controlled by optimizing the performance objective. As
depicted from the results, the reliability and availability goals (I9) is placed at level 3. Health
and safety challenges (I5) indirectly affect the other challenges, and it too should be tackled
holistically across the organization among different departments, otherwise it will be difficult
to address the desired objective and thereby come at the level 4 of ISM modeling. Level 5 of the
ISM modeling presents the implementation of IoT (I4), big data (I6) and cloud computing and
storage (I7)-related technologies for the adoption of Industry 4.0 in general and Maintenance
4.0 in particular. These challenges are about the hardware and software required for the
implementation of Maintenance 4.0 in the industry, and hence these three challenges should
be addressed simultaneously. Last but not least are the cybersecurity (I3) and technician skill
(I2) challenges that are categorized at the lowest level by ISM modeling and will create hassles
in the implementation of Maintenance 4.0 in any sector of Industry 4.0.

5. Conclusions
The effect of breakdowns and failures are detrimental to operations of any system and a
matter of great concern in today’s competitive world where industries are aggressively
shifting their operating paradigms toward Industry 4.0. Hence, maintenance actions need to
be elevated to such a level that satisfies the objectives of Industry 4.0. However, this
necessitates a clear understanding of challenges toward achieving the Maintenance 4.0 goals.

S. No Cluster name Challenges in maintenance 4.0

1 Driver challenges I2, I3, I4

Table 11. 2 Linkage challenges I6, I7
Clusters of challenges– 3 Dependent challenges I1, I8, I9
MICMAC analysis 4 Autonomous challenges I5
In this paper, the challenges for the implementation of Maintenance 4.0 practices in an Maintenance 4.0
industry in the era of I4.0 are identified and categorized. The identified challenges are then implementation
analyzed by implementing the ISM and MICMAC hybrid methodology.
According to the best knowledge of the authors, no articles exist in the literature that
challenges
systematically addresses the challenges in the implementation of Maintenance 4.0 concepts,
including its identification, modeling and analysis. Hence, this paper has the novelty of
addressing those concerns. Moreover, the research also helped in establishing the
relationship among various challenges that would help various stakeholders in decision- 1723
making regarding the implementation of Maintenance 4.0. The present research may aid
practicing engineers and academicians to understand the rationale of the dependency of the
challenges and it will help the organizations in implementing Maintenance 4.0 quickly and
productively. The analysis of challenges in various categories revealed that to achieve
Maintenance 4.0, industries should focus on the development of cloud computing and cloud
storage technologies. Big data is another essential tool toward Maintenance 4.0 realization
that requires a synergistic combination of both computing facilities and human resources.
Hence, industries must focus on the recruitment of more data scientists who are experts in
machine learning and deep learning. To transform factories into smart factories, the
legislative bodies must get involved to sort out issues with regard to the funding of ventures
that aim at generating smart machines via model training and deep learning. If the proper
infrastructure and technology are provided to the right personnel, then the eradication of
these challenges would be easy, and implementation of Maintenance 4.0 will be a reality.

References
Alqahtani, A.Y., Gupta, S.M. and Nakashima, K. (2019), “Warranty and maintenance analysis of
sensor embedded products using internet of things in industry 4.0”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 208, pp. 483-499.
Ansari, F., Erol, S. and Sihn, W. (2018), “Rethinking human-machine learning in industry 4.0: how
does the paradigm shift treat the role of human learning?”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 23,
pp. 117-122.
Aschenbrenner, D., Maltry, N., Kimmel, J., Albert, M., Scharnagl, J. and Schilling, K. (2016), “ARTab-
using virtual and augmented reality methods for an improved situation awareness for tele
maintenance”, IFAC-Papers OnLine, Vol. 49 No. 30, pp. 204-209.
Attri, R., Dev, N. and Sharma, V. (2013), “Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: an
overview”, Research Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 2319 No. 2, p. 1171.
Badri, A., Boudreau-Trudel, B. and Souissi, A.S. (2018), “Occupational health and safety in the
industry 4.0 era: a cause for major concern?”, Safety Science, Vol. 109, pp. 403-411.
Bag, S. and Pretorius, J.H.C. (2022), “Relationships between industry 4.0, sustainable manufacturing
and circular economy: proposal of a research framework”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 864-898.
Beetz, M., Bartels, G., AlbuSchaffer, A., BalintBenczedi, F., Belder, R., Bebler, D., Haddadin, S.,
Maldonado, A., Mansfeld, N., Wiedemeyer, T., Weitschat, R. and Worch, J.H. (2015), “Robotic
agents capable of natural and safe physical interaction with human co-workers”, International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE, No. 7354310, pp. 6528-6535.
Benias, N. and Markopoulos, A.P. (2017), “A review on the readiness level and cyber-security
challenges in Industry 4.0”, 2017 South Eastern European Design Automation, Computer
Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM),
IEEE, pp. 1-5.
Bokrantz, J., Skoogh, A., Berlin, C., Wuest, T. and Stahre, J. (2020), “Smart Maintenance: an empirically
grounded conceptualization”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 223, 107534.
IJQRM Brettel, M., Friederichsen, N., Keller, M. and Rosenberg, M. (2014), “How virtualization, decentralization
and network building change the manufacturing landscape: an industry 4.0 perspective”,
40,7 International Journal of Mechanical, Industrial Science and Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Bruneo, D. and De Vita, F. (2019), “On the use of LSTM networks for predictive maintenance in smart
industries”, IEEE International Conference on Smart Computing (SMARTCOMP), IEEE,
pp. 241-248.
C
arcel-Carrasco, J. and C
arcel-Carrasco, J.A. (2021), “Analysis for the knowledge management
1724 application in maintenance engineering: perception from maintenance technicians”, Applied
Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 703.
Causano, C. and Napoletano, P. (2017), “Visual recognition of aircraft mechanical parts for smart
maintenance”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 86, pp. 26-33.
Chen, J., Jing, H., Chang, Y. and Liu, Q. (2019), “Gated recurrent unit based recurrent neural network
for remaining useful life prediction of nonlinear deterioration process”, Reliability Engineering
and System Safety, Vol. 185, pp. 372-382.
Chiu, Y.U., Fan-Tien, C. and Hsien-Cheng, H. (2017), “Developing a factory-wide intelligent predictive
maintenance system based on Industry 4.0”, Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers,
Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 562-571.
Compare, M., Baraldi, P. and Zio, E. (2019), “Challenges to IoT-enabled predictive maintenance for
industry 4.0”, IEEE Internet of Things Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 4585-4597.
Cristians, A. and Methven, J.M. (2017), “Industry 4.0: fundamentals and a quantitative analysis of
benefits through a discrete event simulation, In. challenges for Technology Innovation: an
Agenda for the Future”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Smart
Manufacturing (S2M 2016), CRC Press, Lisbon, Portugal, p. 177.
D’Anniballe, A., Silva, J., Marzocca, P. and Ceruti, A. (2020), “The role of augmented reality in air
accident investigation and practitioner training”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
Vol. 204, 107149.
Dalzochio, J., Kunst, R., Pignaton, E., Binotto, A., Sanyal, S., Favilla, J. and Barbosa, J. (2020), “Machine
learning and reasoning for predictive maintenance in Industry 4.0: current status and
challenges”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 123, 103298.
De Crescenzio, Fantini, M., Persiani, F., Di Stefano, L., Azzari, P. and Salti, S. (2011), “Augmented
reality for aircraft maintenance training and operations support”, IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 96-101.
Dinardo, G., Fabbiano, L. and Vacca, G. (2018), “A smart and intuitive machine condition monitoring
in the Industry 4.0 scenario”, Measurement, Vol. 126, pp. 1-12.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Luo, Z., Wamba, S.F. and Roubaud, D. (2019),
“Can big data and predictive analytics improve social and environmental sustainability?”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 144, pp. 534-545.
Farsi, M.A. and Zio, E. (2019), “Industry 4.0: some challenges and opportunities for reliability
engineering”, International Journal of Reliability, Risk and Safety: Theory and Application, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Fern
andez-Caram
es, T.M., Fraga-Lamas, P., Su
arez-Albela, M. and Vilar-Montesinos, M. (2018), “A fog
computing and cloudlet based augmented reality system for the industry 4.0 shipyard”,
Sensors, Vol. 18 No. 6, p. 1798.
Flores, M., Maklin, D., Golob, M., Al-Ashaab, A. and Tucci, C. (2018), “Awareness towards industry
4.0: key enablers and applications for internet of things and big data”, Working conference on
virtual enterprises, Springer, Cham, pp. 377-386.
Forcina, A., Introna, V. and Silvestri, A. (2021), “Enabling technology for maintenance in a smart
factory: a literature review”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 180, pp. 430-435.
Franciosi, C., Iung, B., Miranda, S. and Riemma, S. (2018), “Maintenance for sustainability in the industry
4.0 context: a scoping literature review”, IFAC-Papers OnLine, Vol. 51 No. 11, pp. 903-908.
Fusko, M.I., Rakyta, M.I., Krajcovic, M.A., Dulina, L.U., Gaso, M.A. and Grznar, P.A. (2018), “Basics of Maintenance 4.0
designing maintenance processes in industry 4.0”, MM Science Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 2252-2259.
implementation
Galar, D. and Kans, M. (2017), “The impact of maintenance 4.0 and big data analytics within strategic
asset management”, Maintenance Performance and Measurement and Management, Lule a
challenges
tekniska universitet, Lule
a, pp. 96-104.
Ghobakhloo, M. (2020), “Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustainability”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 252, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119869.
1725
Gibson, I. (2014), Additive Manufacturing Technologies, Springer, New York.
Glazer, O. (2019), “Is there a shortcut to Industrial Analytics/Maintenance 4.0 implementation?”,
available at: https://www.presenso.com/blog/maintenance4deploymentshortcuts
Hazen, B.T., Boone, C.A., Ezell, J.D. and Jones-Farmer, L.A. (2014), “Data quality for data science,
predictive analytics, and big data in supply chain management: an introduction to the problem
and suggestions for research and applications”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 154, pp. 72-80.
Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M., Antosz, K., Wycz
ołkowski, R., Mazurkiewicz, D., Sun, B., Qian, C. and Ren,
Y. (2021), “Application of MICMAC, Fuzzy AHP, and Fuzzy TOPSIS for evaluation of the
maintenance factors affecting sustainable manufacturing”, Energies, Vol. 14 No. 5, p. 1436.
Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M., Legutko, S. and Kluk, P. (2020), “Maintenance 4.0 technologies–new
opportunities for sustainability driven maintenance”, Management and Production Engineering
Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 11-17.
Ji, C., Li, Y., Qiu, W., Jin, Y., Xu, Y., Awada, U., Li, K. and Qu, W. (2012), “Big data processing:
big challenges and opportunities”, Journal of Interconnection Networks, Vol. 13 Nos 3-4,
1250009.
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,
Vol. 101, pp. 107-119.
Kandemir, C. and Celik, M. (2020), “A human reliability assessment of marine auxiliary machinery
maintenance operations under ship PMS and maintenance 4.0 concepts”, Cognition, Technology
and Work, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 473-487.
Kaparthi, S. and Bumblauskas, D. (2020), “Designing predictive maintenance systems using decision
tree-based machine learning techniques”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 659-686.
Karadayi-Usta, S. (2019), “An interpretive structural analysis for industry 4.0 adoption challenges”,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 973-978.
Katiraee, N., Battini, D., Battaia, O. and Calzavara, M. (2019), “Human diversity factors in production
system modelling and design: state of the art and future researches”, IFAC-papers On Line,
Vol. 52, pp. 2544-2549.
uller, J.M., Arnold, C. and Voigt, K. (2017), “Sustainable industrial value creation: benefits
Kiel, D., M€
and challenges of industry 4.0”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 8,
1740015, doi: 10.1142/S1363919617400151.
Koch, P.J., van Amstel, M.K., De˛ bska, P., Thormann, M.A., Tetzlaff, A.J., Bøgh, S. and Chrysostomou,
D. (2017), “A skill-based robot co-worker for industrial maintenance tasks”, Procedia
Manufacturing, Vol. 11, pp. 83-90.
Kumar, U. and Galar, D. (2018), “Maintenance in the era of industry 4.0: issues and challenges”, in
Quality, IT and Business Operations, Springer, available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.
1007/978-981-10-5577-5_19
Kumar, S. and Sharma, R. (2018), “Key barriers in the growth of rural health care: an ISM-MICMAC
approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 2169-2183.
IJQRM Kumar, R., Singh, R.K. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2020), “Application of industry 4.0 technologies in SMEs for
ethical and sustainable operations: analysis of challenges”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
40,7 Vol. 275, 124063.
Kumar, S., Gupta, M., Suhaib, M. and Asjad, M. (2021), “Current status, enablers and barriers of
implementing cellular manufacturing system in sports industry through ISM”, International
Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 345-360.
Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.G., Feld, T. and Hoffmann, M. (2014), “Industry 4.0”, Business and
1726 Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 239-242.
Lass, S. and Gronau, N. (2020), “A factory operating system for extending existing factories to
Industry 4.0”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 115, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2019.103128.
Li, L. (2017), “China’s manufacturing locus in 2025: with a comparison of “Made-in-China 2025” and
“Industry 4.0”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 135, pp. 66-74.
Li, Z., Wang, Y. and Wang, K.S. (2017), “Intelligent predictive maintenance for fault diagnosis and
prognosis in machine centers: industry 4.0 scenario”, Advances in Manufacturing, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 377-387.
Li, N., Gebraeel, N., Lei, Y., Fang, X., Cai, X. and Yan, T. (2020), “Remaining useful life prediction based
on a multi-sensor data fusion model”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 208,
107249.
Lira, D.N. and Borsato, M. (2016), “Dependability modeling for the failure prognostics in smart
Manufacturing”, Transdisciplinary Engineering: Crossing Boundaries, Vol. 4, pp. 885-894.
Man, J. and Zhou, Q. (2018), “Prediction of hard failures with stochastic degradation signals using
wiener process and proportional hazards model”, Computers and Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 125, pp. 480-489.
Mandal, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1994), “Vendor selection using interpretive structural modelling
(ISM)”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 52-59.
Masoni, R., Ferrise, F., Bordegoni, M., Gattullo, M., Uva, A.E., Fiorentino, M., Carrabba, E. and Di
Donato, M. (2017), “Supporting remote maintenance in industry 4.0 through augmented reality”,
Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 11, pp. 1296-1302.
Masood, T. and Egger, J. (2019), “Augmented reality in support of Industry 4.0 implementation
challenges and success factors”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 58,
pp. 181-195.
Masood, T. and Sonntag, P. (2020), “Industry 4.0: adoption challenges and benefits for SMEs”,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 121, 103261.
McKinsey (2015), Industry 4.0: How to Navigate Digitization of the Manufacturing Sector, McKinsey &
Company, Detroit, MI.
Mishra, R.C. and Pathak, K. (2012), Maintenance Engineering and Management, PHI Learning Pvt,
New Delhi.
Mohammadi, M., Al-Fuqaha, A., Sorour, S. and Guizani, M. (2018), “Deep learning for IoT big data and
streaming analytics: a survey”, IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 2923-2960.
Moktadir, M.A., Ali, S.M., Kusi-Sarpong, S. and Shaikh, M.A.A. (2018), “Assessing challenges for
implementing Industry 4.0: implications for process safety and environmental protection”,
Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 117, pp. 730-741.
Mosyurchak, A.N., Veselkov, V.L., Turygin, A.N. and Hammer, M.I. (2017), “Prognosis of behaviour of
machine tool spindles, their diagnostics and maintenance”, MM Science Journal, Vol. 5,
pp. 2100-2104.
Navas, M.A., Sancho, C. and Carpio, J. (2020), “Disruptive maintenance engineering 4.0”, International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 37 Nos 6/7, pp. 853-871.
Nordal, H. and El-Thalji, I. (2021), “Modeling a predictive maintenance management architecture to Maintenance 4.0
meet industry 4.0 requirements: a case study”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 34-50.
implementation
Pati, N., Dube, A.S. and Gawande, R.S. (2016), “Analysis of green supply chain barriers using
integrated ISM-fuzzy MICMAC approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23
challenges
No. 6, pp. 1558-1578.
Peres, R.S., Rocha, A.D., Leitao, P. and Barata, J. (2018), “IDARTS–Towards intelligent data
analysis and real-time supervision for industry 4.0”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 101,
pp. 138-146. 1727
Pettitt, G. and Westfall, S. (2016), “The advantages of integrating major hazard safety and impact
assessments for pipeline projects”, Proceedings of the Biennial International Pipeline Conference,
IPC 2, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.
Raj, A., Dwivedi, G., Sharma, A., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. and Rajak, S. (2020), “Barriers to the
adoption of industry 4.0 technologies in the manufacturing sector: an inter-country comparative
perspective”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 224, 107546.
Ribeiro, A., Silva, A. and da Silva, A.R. (2015), “Data modeling and data analytics: a survey from a big
data perspective”, Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 8 No. 12, p. 617.
Roda, I., Macchi, M. and Fumagalli, L. (2018), “The future of maintenance within industry 4.0: an
empirical research in manufacturing”, IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production
Management Systems, Springer, Cham, pp. 39-46.
Roy, R., Stark, R., Tracht, K., Takata, S. and Mori, M. (2016), “Continuous maintenance and the
future – foundations and technological challenges”, CIRP Annals, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 667-688.
Seneviratne, D., Ciani, L., Catelani, M. and Galar, D. (2018), “Smart maintenance and inspection of
linear assets: an Industry 4.0 approach”, ACTA IMEKO, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 50-56.
Shafiq, S.I., Sanin, C., Szczerbicki, E. and Toro, C. (2016), “Virtual engineering factory: creating
experience base for industry 4.0”, Cybernetics and Systems, Vol. 47 Nos 1-2, pp. 32-47.
Sharma, P., Thakar, G. and Gupta, R.C. (2013), “Interpretive structural modeling of functional
objectives (Criteria’s) of Assembly Line Balancing Problem”, International Journal of Computer
Applications, Vol. 83 No. 13, pp. 14-22.
Siemieniuch, C.E., Sinclair, M.A. and Henshaw, M.J.C. (2015), “Global drivers, sustainable
manufacturing and systems ergonomics”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 51, pp. 104-119.
Silvestri, L., Forcina, A., Introna, V., Santolamazza, A. and Cesarotti, V. (2020), “Maintenance
transformation through Industry 4.0 technologies: a systematic literature review”, Computers in
Industry, Vol. 123, 103335.
Sindhwani, R. and Malhotra, V. (2017), “Modelling and analysis of agile manufacturing system by ISM
and MICMAC analysis”, International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and
Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 253-263.
Singh, S., Galar, D., Baglee, D. and Bj€orling, S.E. (2014), “Self-maintenance techniques: a smart
approach towards self-maintenance system”, International Journal of System Assurance
Engineering and Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 75-83.
 Veza, I. and Bosnjak, I. (2015), “A concept of information system implementation within
Stojki
c, Z.,
industry 4.0”, Annals of DAAAM and Proceedings of the International DAAAM Symposium,
pp. 912-919.
Subramaniyan, M., Skoogh, A., Salomonsson, H., Bangalore, P. and Bokrantz, J. (2018), “A data-driven
algorithm to predict throughput bottlenecks in a production system based on active periods of
the machines”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 125, pp. 533-544.
Susto, G.A., Schirru, A., Pampuri, S., Beghi, A. and De Nicolao, G. (2018), “A hidden-Gamma model-
based filtering and prediction approach for monotonic health factors in manufacturing”, Control
Engineering Practice, Vol. 74, pp. 84-94.
IJQRM Tortorella, G.L., Fogliatto, F.S., Cauchick-Miguel, P.A., Kurnia, S. and Jurburg, D. (2021), “Integration
of Industry 4.0 technologies into Total Productive Maintenance practices”, International Journal
40,7 of Production Economics, Vol. 240, 108224.
Trotta, D. and Garengo, P. (2018), “Industry 4.0 key research topics: a bibliometric review”, 7th
international conference on industrial technology and management (ICITM), IEEE,
pp. 113-117.
Vinodh, S. and Wankhede, V.A. (2021), “Application of fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy CODAS for
1728 analysis of workforce attributes pertaining to Industry 4.0: a case study”, International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1695-1721.
Wang, W. and Lu, Z. (2013), “Cyber security in the Smart Grid: survey and challenges”, Computer
Networks, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 1344-1371.
Warfield, J.W. (1974), “Developing Interconnected Matrices in Structural Modelling”, IEEE Transcript
on Systems, Men and Cybernetics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 51-81.
uller, T., Bauernhansl, T. and Kyek, A. (2017), “Production scheduling in
Waschneck, B., Altenm€
complex job shops from an industrie 4.0 perspective: a review and challenges in the
semiconductor industry”, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, p. 1793.
Watson, R.H. (1978), “Interpretive structural modeling—A useful tool for technology assessment?”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 165-185.
Windelband, L. (2014), “Zukunft der Facharbeit im Zeitalter Industrie 4.0”, Journal of Technical
Education (JOTED), Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 138-160.
Windelband, L. (2017), “Work requirements and qualifications in maintenance 4.0”, in Advances in
Ergonomic Design of Systems, Products and Processes, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 89-102.
Xu, L.D., Xu, E.L. and Li, L. (2018), “Industry 4.0: state of the Art and Future Trends”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 2941-2962.
Yadav, S. and Singh, S.P. (2020), “Blockchain critical success factors for sustainable supply chain”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 152, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104505.
Yen, C.T., Liu, Y.C., Lin, C.C., Kao, C.C., Wang, W.B. and Hsu, Y.R. (2014), “Advanced manufacturing
solution to industry 4.0 trend through sensing network and cloud computing technologies”,
2014 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), IEEE,
pp. 1150-1152.
Zolotov
a, I., Papcun, P., Kaj
ati, E., Miskuf, M. and Mocnej, J. (2020), “Smart and cognitive solutions for
Operator 4.0: laboratory H-CPPS case studies”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 139,
105471.
Zonta, T., da Costa, C.A., da Rosa Righi, R., de Lima, M.J., da Trindade, E.S. and Li, G.P. (2020),
“Predictive maintenance in the Industry 4.0: a systematic literature review”, Computers and
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 150, 106889.

Corresponding author
Girish Kumar can be contacted at: girish.kumar154@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com