Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering

ISSN: 2168-1015 (Print) 2168-1023 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjci21

How does Industry 4.0 contribute to operations

management?

Diego Castro Fettermann, Caroline Gobbo Sá Cavalcante, Tatiana

Domingues de Almeida & Guilherme Luz Tortorella

To cite this article: Diego Castro Fettermann, Caroline Gobbo Sá Cavalcante, Tatiana Domingues
de Almeida & Guilherme Luz Tortorella (2018): How does Industry 4.0 contribute to operations
management?, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2018.1462863

Published online: 24 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjci21
Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2018.1462863

How does Industry 4.0 contribute to operations management?

Diego Castro Fettermann  , Caroline Gobbo Sá Cavalcante  , Tatiana Domingues de Almeida and
Guilherme Luz Tortorella 
Department of Industrial and Systems, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Interconnection among systems requires the interaction between different technologies, such Received 26 September 2017
as radio frequency identifier, sensors, processing in the cloud and cyber-physical systems. The Revised 9 February 2018
use of these technologies entails transforming the way operations management is carried out Accepted 9 March 2018
within companies, with potential for application in several fields of activity. This article aims to KEYWORDS
identify the contribution of the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies for companies’ operation Internet of Things; maturity
management (OM). Based on a survey with 38 successful cases of Industry 4.0 implementation, level; technologies;
the results achieved the main benefits of the use of these technologies for OM. These results contingency tables
indicate that Industry 4.0’s contributions are more concentrated in areas such as Technology
management and Just-in-time manufacturing. Further, the maturity level of the successful cases
analyzed is still incipient, indicating a potential for increasing productivity after the application
of these technologies.

1. Introduction factories [4,8–11], smart manufacturing [12], industrial

The advent of Industry 4.0 implies new paradigms regard-
ing most managerial approaches. Back in the eighteenth
century, when the first industrial revolution was taking
place, industrial machines were being adapted to steam
engines [1]. At the beginning of the twentieth century,
a new revolution was underway, which was character-
ized by division of labor, employment of mass produc-
tion made possible by electrical power, exploration of
new materials such as steel and synthetics, as well as
utilization of new kinds of fuel [2–4]. However, it didn’t
stop there, in the 1970s, a third industrial revolution was
emerging that would revolutionize society. It could be
described by the application of programmable logic
controllers (PLCs) for manufacturing automation [2], in
addition to the use of information technologies for pro-
duction management [5].
Currently, productive processes are being prepared
for what has been coined the fourth industrial revo-
lution. It has been enabled by the use of the Internet
through wide communication networks in a system
called cyber-physical systems (CPS) [2]. First, put forward
in a report (Industrie 4.0) by a research team recruited by
the German Government which targeted development
in manufacturing [6]. Although this term is considerably
widespread, there are others terms used to present the
features of this same type of manufacturing system, such
as advanced manufacturing [7], smart industry or smart
Internet of Things (IoT) [7,13], networking manufacturing
[8], intelligent manufacturing [14,15], industrial Internet
[16] and so on.
This new paradigm is based on digital factories,
capable of combining information technologies and
machines with smart products [17]. Industry 4.0 devel-
opment seeks to achieve a high level of operational
efficiency, productivity, and automation of production
systems [18]. However, despite the existence of a com-
mon objective, the literature does not present a consen-
sus for its definition [1,19]. Although the term Industry
4.0 roots back to Germany’s high-tech strategy and thus
has received a lot of attention recently, it still lacks a pre-
cise, generally accepted definition [20]. Weyer et al. [21],
for instance, propose a concept of Industry 4.0 as devices,
machines, production modules and products organized
in CPS with the ability to autonomously exchange infor-
mation and self-control performance of its operations
[21]. Nevertheless, this concept can be extended further
to a value chain, such as a new level of organization and
value chain management throughout the products life
cycle [6] or as a set of technologies and concepts applied
in the value chain [22].
The benefits of harnessing the yields of Industry 4.0
are also diversified. The integration of physical objects,
human interactions, intelligent machines, processes,
and production lines results into the development of

CONTACT  Diego Castro Fettermann  d.fettermann@ufsc.br

© 2018 Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers
2   D. C. FETTERMANN ET AL.
a new, intelligent, connected, and efficient value chain
[23]. This new value chain enables the development of
new business models with different organizations [6,24].
Furthermore, the current research still lacks consistent
knowledge about how the Fourth Industrial Revolution is
going to affect future industries [20]. Such divergence on
concepts and benefits with respect to Industry 4.0 rein-
forces the need for establishing a procedure for its prac-
tical application [25,26], especially when it involves the
impact of new technologies on operations management
(OM) [27]. Still further, there is lack of understanding
about the implications of Industry 4.0 technologies on
OM [28]. Based on these arguments, one research ques-
tion can be raised: “how does the adoption of Industry
4.0 technologies impact companies’ operations manage-
ment within companies?”
Based on research carried out on previous case stud-
ies reported in the literature, this article aims at identi-
fying the main contribution of Industry 4.0 adoption for
companies’ operations management. The existing evi-
dence is diversified, and the literature is fairly generic
to accurately identify the contributions of Industry 4.0
to OM. Therefore, the consolidation of studies report-
ing successful implementation of Industry 4.0, followed
by research about what technologies were employed
and their contributions to operations management.
This study contributes to the body of knowledge on
Industry 4.0, which is still shallow and whose association
with existing operations management concepts scarcely
suggested [20]. Further, this research indicates practical
implications of Industry 4.0, since it aims at providing
evidence to assist in better understanding the applied
frameworks and how they impacted operations man-
agement within companies. It also makes possible the
mitigation of the lack of procedures for implementation
Industry 4.0 [25,26,29–31].
Besides this introductory section, this paper is struc-
tured as follows. Section 2 presents fundamental con-
cepts for the research, such as the main features of
Industry 4.0 and OM. The third section describes the
procedure used for data collection and classification of
the case studies analyzed, whose results are discussed in
the fourth section. Finally, section five brings the conclu-
sions, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future
research.
2.  Literature review
2.1.  Industry 4.0 technologies
Industry 4.0 encompasses devices and technologies that
bring with them many opportunities for new products
and services [32]. The use of these technologies can
usher in technical and organizational advantages and
improvements [33]. The same technologies can contrib-
ute in many ways to the performance of manufacturing
processes [34], through decentralization [19], vertical
[28] and horizontal integration [2,6,22], and remote pro-
cess monitoring [28].
However, the literature does not present a single way
of referring to Industry 4.0 technologies. Many of the
classifications used in the literature are even incompat-
ible with each other, classifying the same technologies
into different categories. To reduce such diversity of clas-
sification, technologies functionalities have been used as
criteria in this work, resulting in seven different catego-
ries. The first category comprises technologies used for
information processing and is denoted as “data analysis
and processing,” which incorporates technologies such
as advanced algorithms for process optimization, ana-
lytic tools, like machine learning, data mining, big data,
and authentication and fraud detection, as pointed out
in the literature [4,35,36]. The second category is related
to an increase on the perception and information uti-
lization, called “augmented reality.” These technologies
intend to capture objects by visual sensors to process
and find out the context hidden in them [37,38], includ-
ing virtual objects in the physical environment which
are shown to the user in real time with the support of
some technological device [39]. The third category is
named “cloud computing,” and indicates the important
components of the future Internet [4,28,35,40,41]. It is
defined as a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient,
on-demand network access to a shared pool of config-
urable computing resources that can be rapidly provi-
sioned and released with minimal management effort or
service provider interaction [42]. This category consists
of technologies for remotely processing data, incorpo-
rating servers, big data storage systems, applications,
and services [35,40,41]. The fourth category, named as
“mobile devices,” aims at portability and includes the
use of mobile terminals, i.e. smartphones, tablets, smart
glasses among others to access information [4,9,43,44].
The fifth category is called Internet of Things (IoT) and
intends to carry out the communication and presenta-
tion of information. It also includes the use of intelligent
sensors, middleware, location detection technologies,
IoT applications, wireless networks, radio frequency
identifier (RFID), etc. [30,45,46]. “Additive manufacturing”
is the sixth category and involves the utilization of 3D
printers [17,47–49]. Various raw materials can be used
by different 3D printing methods, including polymers,
epoxy resins, nylon, wax, powders, oils, and nutrients,
as well as titanium, sterling silver, stainless steel, leather,
sandstone, and materials that mimic human cells [50]. In
this sense, the use of additive manufacturing technolo-
gies can reduce time and cost for product development
and manufacturing [48–50], and enable mass customi-
zation of goods on a large scale [51]. Finally, the seventh
category, known as CPS, comprises robotization, auto-
mation and advanced use of human–machine interface
and machine–machine interface [52], contributing to the
automation and control of processes [53]. CPS consists

of autonomous and cooperative elements that are get-
ting into connection with each other in all processes,
from machines up to production and logistics networks
[54]. In manufacturing processes, CPS comprises the
machines used in manufacturing, transportation, robots,
automatic guided vehicles (AGV), among others devices
[46,52]. From these categories, it was possible to iden-
tify the citation frequency of these technologies as part
of Industry 4.0 presented in the literature (Table 1). The
results confirm that there is no consensus among the
technologies that make up Industry 4.0. This diversity
and constant development of technologies contribute
of the complexity of the theme. The research of tech-
nologies mentioned in the literature is presented in the
Table 1.
2.2.  Maturity models for Industry 4.0
To measure the development level of an industry or
some of its processes, maturity models are generally
used as a supporting tool [23], which describes the
steps for improving a certain process from an incipient
to an advanced level, incorporating each level’s compo-
nents and recommendations [61]. These components
are often composed by practices, processes, tools, and
technologies used to increase organizational efficiency
[62]. Thus, maturity levels help in the assessment and
understanding of organization’s current state, while pro-
viding guidelines for continuous improvement within
the organization [63].
In the existing literature, there are still few proposi-
tions regarding maturity models for Industry 4.0 imple-
mentation [30] (see Table 2). These models are a guide
to Industry 4.0 implementation in order to mitigate mis-
interpretations. The model developed by Schumacher
et al. [23] presents a more holistic analysis of Industry
4.0 implementation, since it considers 62 items catego-
rized in nine different dimensions and evaluated based
on a five-point Likert scale. On the other hand, PwC [39]
suggests a maturity model comprised by six dimensions
that classifies companies into four different develop-
ment levels: digital novice, vertical integrator, horizon-
tal integrator e digital champion. Rockwell Automation
[64] presents a model with a five dimensions for eval-
uating Industry 4.0 implementation that is focused on
the adoption level of several technologies. Lanza et al.
[65] propose a maturity model with three dimensions
based on the advancement of CPS. Finally, the model of
Porter and Heppelmann [66] focus on the level of cus-
tomer-oriented technologies to products and services,
categorizing them into the levels of monitoring, control,
optimization, and autonomy.
Overall, it is observed that the “Technology” dimen-
sion is the most frequently used in the maturity mod-
els analyzed. This dimension aims at measuring the
advancement level of technologies related to Industry
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND PRODUCTION ENGINEERING   3
4.0, indicating that the existing models are mainly tech-
nology-oriented. However, it is important to take into
account the fact that some sociocultural aspects, such
as Leadership and Culture are operationalized in some
the models displayed in Table 2.
2.3.  Operations management
Until the 1980s, operations management (OM) problems
were traditionally addressed through a model-based
approach using optimization or simulation method-
ologies [67]. After that, the discipline has undergone
changes in its research agenda. There has been a greater
implementation of empirical research projects, with
particular emphasis on opinion- or perception-oriented
research in order to better understand related issues
such as manufacturing strategy, just-in-time manufac-
turing, quality management. The incorporation of further
research approaches motivated a revision of the study
areas underlying OM [68]. Based on an extensive liter-
ature review of 258 articles published in journals such
as Journal of Operations Management (JOM), Decision
Sciences (DS), Management Science (MS), International
Journal of Operations & Production Management
(IJOPM), International Journal of Production Research
(IJPR) e Production and Operations Management (POM),
Rungtusanatham et al. [69] identified five key areas for
OM: (i) just-in-time manufacturing, (ii) technology man-
agement, (iii) operations strategy, (iv) quality manage-
ment, and (v) supply chain management.
Just-in-time manufacturing (JIT) is related manufac-
turing processes of companies. Efforts in this area aims
at continuous improvement of products and processes
[70,71]. According to Rungtusanatham et al. [69], this area
is associated with performance improvement, encom-
passing changes such as organizational design based
on simplification [70] and inventory levels [71,72]. The
area of technology management is broadly addressed
by different authors, such as Pavitt [73], Liao [74], Erensal
et al. [75] and Zehner [76]. For the purpose of this arti-
cle, it will be considered the characteristics proposed by
Rungtusanatham et al. [69] for this area, which include
flexible manufacturing systems, manufacturing with
advanced technology, robotization, and cellular manu-
facturing. The area of operations strategy is concerned
with the choice or decision patterns which encompass
the entire organizational system [77]. This area deals with
business strategy and correlates demand to production
needs, hence defining the manufacturing management
process [78], and including service and manufacturing
strategies [69]. The fourth area, quality management,
seeks to increase both quality and productivity, as well
as to improve customer and employees satisfaction [79].
In order to achieve that, the use of quality control and
monitoring functions become necessary in production
processes [80,81]. Finally, supply chain management area
4   D. C. FETTERMANN ET AL.

considers the product and information flow from raw

et al. Lu Schaefer Saucedo-Martínez

material to the end customer delivery [82]. This area coor-

et al. [60]
dinates activities along the value chain through collabo-

X
X
X
X

X
rative relationships among its members, aiming to create
value for customers and increase the profitability of each
Thames tier [83]. It also comprises products, services, finances,
and information flow, and its strategies are fundamental
and

[59]
X

X
X
X
X

X
to define partnerships among suppliers, supplier selec-
tion, and logistics [69].
[58] [1]
X

X
X
X

X
Wang

X
X
X

X
2.4.  Industry 4.0 and operations management
area
Li et

CNI [47] da-Lobo [28] [46]

al.

X
X
X

X
The benefits that are anticipated to come along with
Industry 4.0 seem to be manifold [6]. The implemen-
Alma-

X
X
X
X

X
tation of automation improves product quality, while
making manufacturing processes more efficient [17,34].
Such trend is especially true when taking into account
X

X
X

the transformation that many industries are undergoing

as a result of Industry 4.0 [17]. According to a survey by
al. [30]
Qin et

the American Society for Quality (ASQ) undertaken in

X

2014, 82% of organizations that claim to have imple-

mented smart manufacturing stated that they have
Tamás
et al.
[32]
X

experienced increased efficiency, 49% experienced fewer

product defects, and 45% achieved increased customer
PwC
[39]

satisfaction [4]. Therefore, the possibilities of different

X

X
X
X
X

arrangement alternatives of Industry 4.0 technologies

can result in several other benefits in the management
Gilchrist
[57]

of the operations, such as: lower product processing time

X

X
X
X
X

[30], manufacturing cost reduction [5,30], improvement

Kang et

of coordination of value chains [20], increased process

al. [48]
X

X
X

flexibility [2], better customer service [5], higher prod-

uct customization [2,19,20,84–86], among others. These
Wan et
al. [53]

benefits can offer outputs for many areas within oper-

X
X
X

ations management, especially in technology manage-

ment, because many of these benefits are focused in the
Sommer
[56]
X

X
X

automation of processes. Further, processes that become

X

automated can potentially improve all activities carried

Lee and

out in a company thus resulting in enhancement in all

[36]
et al. Hozdić Lee

areas of operations management.

According to the literature, the use of Industry 4.0
[52]

technologies still can transform companies core com-

petencies, and it is mentioned as a enabler of some
Bagheri

[43]

strategies for operations management, such as agile

X

X
X

manufacturing and mass customization [2,85,87].

Table 1. Technologies related to Industry 4.0.

Meanwhile, lean manufacturing is an approach widely

Shrouf
Zuehlke Gorecky et al.
[4]
X

X
X
X

used that aims at reducing waste and improving produc-

tivity and quality according to customer requirements
et al. [9]

[88,89]. The lean strategy use is based in a systematic

X
X

human-centered approach of various management

principles and practices [90]. Often, this strategy is men-
[55]
X

tioned as opposed to the result of the implementation

of Industry 4.0 technologies, which tend to lead to less
Cloud computing
Data analysis and

human interaction [21,91].

Additive manu-
Mobile devices
Technologies

processing
Augmented

Several authors have also pointed out the presence of

facturing
reality

barriers to the adoption of Industry 4.0 in manufacturing

CPS
IoT

Table 2. Dimensions assessed according to each maturity model.
Schumacher et al.
Dimensions [23] Lanza et al. [65]
Strategy X X
Leadership X
Consumers X X
Products X X
Operations X X
Culture X X
People X X
Governance X
Safety
Technology X X
companies. In general, the process of implementing
these technologies demands a quite intensive level of
capital expenditure, reducing its implementation attrac-
tiveness [92]. The management and control of integrated
operations in Industry 4.0 also demand skilled workers.
This particular demand for highly skilled labor is also
mentioned as the biggest challenge to use Industry 4.0
technologies specially within developing economies
[92].
3. Method
The research method is based on a multi-case study [93]
on successful implementations of Industry 4.0. Each case
analyzed had as a primary source of information the pub-
lications available in the literature. This source of infor-
mation was confronted and complemented with other
sources, such as companies’ websites. This information
was complemented with other sources that investigated
the same case. After further examination, we identified
the area of OM in which the technologies of Industry 4.0
were used and the corresponding maturity level.
3.1.  Data source
The search for successful Industry 4.0 implementation
cases was undertaken in order to identify applications
in most areas of industry. First, the search was carried
out in database of confererence presentations as a way
of ensuring the distribution of cases in a wide range
of fields. Seven conferences were considered relevant
to the area evaluated, as suggested by Liao et al. [74].
Following this recommendation, the analyzed were pre-
sented at the following conferences: IEEE International
Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory
Automation (ETFA), CIRP Conference on Manufacturing
Systems (CIRP-CMS), Internet of Things World Forum,
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics
(INDIN) e IFAC Symposium on Information Control
Problems in Manufacturing (INCOM). The research pro-
cess was performed in the database of these conferences
to the years of 2014, 2015, and 2016. At the end of this
procedure, it was possible to identify only two cases with
the company identification and sufficient information
for further analysis. Other six cases were also collected
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND PRODUCTION ENGINEERING   5
Rockwell Porter and
PwC [39] Automation [64] Heppelmann [66]
X X
X
X X
X X
X X X
from the conferences database. The information about
the cases investigated was deepened from information
collected directly on the companies website and other
publications about them.
In order to complement the survey conducted in the
conferences database were also considered cases com-
piled and presented in the form of national reports. The
data about cases reported by the German Government
[94] and cases reported by the Japanese Government,
compiled by the Robot Revolution Initiative [95] were
also used. At the end of survey it was carried out for suc-
cessful cases of Industry 4.0 implementation, 38 cases
were identified (Appendix 1). This procedure resulted
in cases of several areas of activities and with different
results, not compromising the sampling procedure per-
formed. The search procedure was performed between
April 20 and 30 2017. The entire data collection was con-
firmed and complemented using other sources, such as
the companies websites and publications related to the
cases analyzed.
3.2.  Data analysis
For each successful case of Industry 4.0 identified in
the data collection, procedure undertaken in the three
analyses were carried out: (i) about its contribution to
operations management area(s), (ii) the maturity level of
Industry 4.0 implementation, and (iii) Industry 4.0 tech-
nologies used in the case.
The maturity level classification was done from using
the model proposed by Porter and Heppelmann [66].
Despite the others models presented in the literature
review of this article [23,39,64,65] presented a more
encompassing evaluation of Industry 4.0 implementa-
tion, the information available about the cases analyzed
is it not enough to identify the maturity level of the case.
Among the proposals, the one developed by Porter and
Heppelmann [66] is focused on the maturity level of the
technology adopted. This proposal was used to clas-
sify the maturity level of each case analyzed because
of sources of information available from each case
didn’t provide sufficient evidence to identify Industry
4.0 maturity level using the other models identified in
the literature. Thus, each of the cases analyzed is clas-
sified according to four maturity levels: (i) monitoring,
6   D. C. FETTERMANN ET AL.
(ii) control, (iii) optimization, and (iv) autonomy. The level
(i) monitoring incorporates cases that apply technolo-
gies for monitoring and reporting information from the
environment or the equipment in real time, creating new
data, and information for the process. Cases classified at
(ii) control level integrates applications that can control
the operation of the system through internal software
or in the cloud. The level (iii) optimization refers to cases
that use algorithms or data analysis capable of optimiz-
ing the operation of the system, its use and mainte-
nance. Finally, cases classified at the (iv) autonomy level
are those with the system embodies in the solution the
capacity to learn and adapt to the environment in order
for itself to achieve a better set-up and consequently
improve performance [66].
For the contributions of the cases analyzed accord-
ing to the areas within operations management,
the definition of each area and scope presented by
Rungtusanatham et al. [69] was used. This proposal con-
siders five areas in management of operations: (i) Just-
in-Time manufacturing, (ii) technology management,
(iii) operations strategy, (iv) quality management, and
(v) supply chain management. Each of the cases has been
classified in one or more areas of OM, depending on their
contribution and application in a company.
The classification of each of the cases was performed
based on a consensus reached by the authors. The fre-
quencies checked are analyzed according to the Chi-
square test of independence in contingency tables. The
Chi-Square test of independence is a non-parametric
test that determines whether there is an association
between categorical variables. This test is used to ver-
ify the hypothesis that frequencies in the contingency
table are independent [96]. The significant associations
are those with an adjusted residue value greater than
|1,96|. The results obtained are presented in the follow-
ing section.
4. Results
The frequencies reported in each of the categories ana-
lyzed do not correspond to the total of studied Industry
4.0 cases. This is a consequence of the fact that many
cases incorporate more than one area of operations man-
agement and use several technologies simultaneously. In
this way, it is emphasized that the breadth of Industry 4.0
implementation in organizations goes beyond a specific
application of a certain types of technology, extending
to a holistic and integrated approach to technologies
that meet all the needs of a digital production system.
4.1.  Contributions of Industry 4.0 to operations
management
The analysis of Industry 4.0 cases distribution in the areas
of operations management indicates a greater cases con-
centration in the technology management, followed by
Just-in-Time manufacturing and supply chain manage-
ment areas (Table 3). This difference in the frequency
distribution is confirmed by the Chi-square test, which
indicates a presence of dependence between frequency
of cases and OM areas (χ² = 38.36; 4; p-value < 0.01). This
result reinforces the breadth of the Industry 4.0 concept,
which goes beyond the traditional areas of manufactur-
ing and technology, confirming its broader concepts that
refer to value added across the value chain [6].
All the analyzed cases present application in the area
of technology management. This characteristic is due
to the fact that Industry 4.0 cases observed are always
aimed at promoting the flexibility of manufacturing sys-
tems (Flexible Manufacturing Systems). This is the case of
the German crane company Wolffkran that has equipped
its cranes with the industrial router that can be controlled
remotely offering greater flexibility for the production.
In addition, the company incorporates the Just-in-Time
manufacturing area through the implementation of
predictive maintenance into the system. Another case
reported by ThyssenKrupp presented contributions in
both areas, technology management and Just-in-Time
manufacturing. In this case, a fusion between the phys-
ical world and the data networks is identified, creating
a “cybernetic system” during the production of elevator
parts. With the use of this technology, the company
reports sustainable gains in production management,
maintenance, logistic processes, reduction of noncon-
formities, and energy savings.
The few cases in the area of quality management,
we mainly identify the use of intelligent sensors and
technologies aimed at reducing errors in the assembly
processes or product development. Among the cases
investigated, we can mention Volkswagen, which uses
an augmented reality (AR) technology by means of cam-
era glasses integrated into the picking process, result-
ing in reduced errors, improved ergonomics conditions,
and increased productivity. Although few cases present
applications directed to the area of quality management,
the expectancy is that the applications in the other areas
contribute indirectly to the quality of the products and
services offered by the companies.
4.2.  Industry 4.0 maturity level and its
contribution to operations management
Among the cases, the results show the monitoring matu-
rity level is predominant in the sample analyzed (Table 4).
This conclusion is corroborated by the significant associ-
ation between frequency of the cases and their maturity
level (χ² = 166.56; 3; p-value < 0.01). The concentration of
cases at the monitoring level indicates that the applica-
tions are addressed to monitor and report information
from the environment in real time, which is an incipient
state in relation to the implementation of Industry 4.0
[66]. Despite the importance attributed to Industry 4.0 to
increase productivity in international surveys [3,39], this
result reveals that the use of these technologies is still
incipient in companies. When analyzing the association
between OM areas and the maturity levels, no significant
 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND PRODUCTION ENGINEERING   7

Table 3. Frequency of application of Industry 4.0 technologies
in the evaluated cases.
OM areas Frequency Percentage
Technology management 37 42.05
Just-in-time manufacturing 25 28.41
Supply chain management 10 11.36
Operations strategy 9 10.23
Quality management 7 7.95
association was found (χ² = 7.52; 12; p-value = 0.821). This
result is confirmed by the absence of adjusted residuals
greater than |1.96| in any of the possible combinations.
It indicates that a greater concentration of cases with
a level of maturity in a specific OM area was not ver-
ified in the analyzed sample. Although the unfolding
of Industry 4.0 has been promoted with a focus on the
OM areas of Just-in-Time manufacturing (for produc-
tion management) and technology management (for
the promotion of FMS and robotics), a greater number
of the uses was not observed in the sample in these
areas. The generation of real-time data enables control
of the industrial systems, therefore the analysis of this
data can be applied in a vast scope in a company [97].
In addition, the concept of Industry 4.0 envisions the
creation of smart products through smart processes,
with applications in several fields, like energy, logistics,
sustainable mobility, etc. [98]. The diversity of Industry
4.0 applications in the OM areas confirms the breadth
of the possibilities of Industry 4.0 adoption expressed in
its concepts. Moreover, the effect of the Industry 4.0 can
be more extensive, affecting beyond production areas
[99] and increasing performance of the companies and
welfare [100].
There was a low frequency of cases classified on
control and optimization maturity levels, and these few
occurrences are registered in technology management
and Just-in-Time manufacturing areas. Regarding the
level of adoption Industry 4.0 technologies, the compa-
nies within aerospace industry are recognized as hav-
ing the highest maturity level of Industry 4.0 [23]. This
level of performance is explained by the experience with
high embedded technology of aerospace components,
which enables the utilization of Industry 4.0 technolo-
gies in manufacturing processes. A different scenario was
observed in the cases analyzed in this research, wherein
few cases have a high level of maturity. Therefore, most
organizations do not consider the fourth industry revolu-
tion in their own culture in order to detect and visualize
new opportunities of improvements [101], also justifying
the low level of maturity of the cases analyzed. A case of
the maturity level optimization refers to the company’s
HBM. It provides a flexible and simplified solution that
allows monitoring and control of the entire production
processes, as well as performing algorithms and critical
quality calculations that allow the worker to identify
and correct problems during manufacturing processes.
For the maturity level autonomy, only the case of the
Stanley Black & Decker company was identified, whose
application is associated to technology management
and supply chain management areas. The company
uses IoT technologies to keep inventory level of materi-
als and components low, through detailed information
and greater visibility of materials status and locations. In
addition, the system allows customers to track the status
of their orders and to schedule delivery.
4.3.  Industry 4.0 technologies and its
contributions to operations management
The results show a predominance of the use of IoT tech-
nologies, followed by CPS and mobile devices (Table 5).
This prevalent usage of one type of technology over
another is confirmed by the Chi-square test (χ² = 162.27; 6;
p-value < 0.001). Although the term Industry 4.0 is often
used to implement CPS [7,54,58], IoT technologies are
more widely used in the sample of cases analyzed. This
regular utilization of IoT can be explained by the fact that
this type of technology contributes to communication
among the systems, also aiding in the operation of CPS,
as well as several other types of applications. Moreover,
the use of sensors technology incorporated into the IoT
category is one of the most mentioned in the literature
as an integral component of Industry 4.0 [1,28,60], and
it is still necessary for the operation of CPS [7].
Although the additive manufacturing technology is
important for Industry 4.0 [28,49,59], among the cases
investigated it was not possible to identify its use. This
characteristic maybe explained by the fact that this kind
of technology is presenting a parallel and independent
path of development, and is even mentioned by some
authors as a new and independent industrial revolution
[102,103].

Table 4. Chi-square test for the association between maturity level of cases and OM areas.
OM
Maturity Level of
Industry 4.0 appli- Technology man- Just-in-time manu- Supply chain man- Quality manage-
cations agement facturing Operations strategy agement ment Total
Monitoring 28 (0.5) 18 (−0.5) 8 (1.1) 7 (−0.2) 4 (−1.0) 65
Control 6 (−0.6) 6 (0.6) 1 (−0.6) 2 (0.1) 2 (0.7) 17
Optimization 2 (−0.1) 2 (0.5) 0 (−0.8) 0 (−0.8) 1 (1.0) 5
Autonomy 1 (0.2) 0 (−0.9) 0 (−0.5) 1 (1.8) 0 (−0.4) 2
Total 37 26 9 10 7 89
Notes: Frequency (adjusted residuals).
8   D. C. FETTERMANN ET AL.

Table 5. Chi-square test for the association between Industry 4.0 technologies and OM areas.
OM
Technology Just-in-Time Operations Supply chain Quality
Technologies management manufacturing strategy management management Total
IoT 30 (0.1) 22 (0.4) 8 (−0.3) 7 (−0.8) 6 (0.5) 73
Cyber-physical systems 10 (−0.4) 10 (1.0) 3 (−0.1) 2 (−0.8) 2 (0.0) 27
Mobile devices 8 (−0.2) 5 (−0.5) 4 (1.1) 3 (0.4) 1 (−0.5) 21
Cloud computing 7 (0.3) 4 (−0.4) 2 (0.1) 3 (0.9) 0 (−1.2) 16
Data analysis and 4 (0.0) 2 (−0.6) 1 (−0.2) 2 (0.8) 1 (0.4) 10
processing
Augmented reality 3 (0.5) 1 (−0.7) 0 (−0.9) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.9) 6
Additive manufac- 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0
turing
Total 62 44 18 18 11 153
Notes: Frequency (adjusted residuals).

The Chi-square test does not identify a presence of
association between the use of the previously men-
tioned technologies and OM areas in the sample ana-
lyzed. This result indicates that none of the technologies
present a frequency lower or higher than expected in
any of the OM areas. A presence of significant associa-
tion between the use of CPS technology and the Just-in-
Time manufacturing area was expected, confirming the
statements presented in the literature [7,54]. Sometimes,
the literature mentions this kind of system analogous
to Industry 4.0 [7,54], even so it does not present a sig-
nificantly higher frequency in this OM area. The litera-
ture also suggests that the use of cloud computing can
improve the performance of supply chain management
[104], however, the sample analyzed did not confirm this
association. Only three cases of cloud computing utiliza-
tion in the supply chain management were found. Again,
this result reinforces the need to bring to light the wide-
spread opportunities of application these technologies
in the companies’ business [98].
Among the areas of OM, the quality management
presented the low frequency of technologies use.
Sometimes, this result can be explained by the lack of
information about the case that harms its classification.
The other technologies, as cloud computing, data pro-
cessing and augmented reality, are distributed among
OM areas proportionally, except additive manufacturing
that was not verified in any of the cases analyzed.
German automobile company Audi is a case with
the use of IoT technologies in the areas of technology
management and quality management. In this case, the
company uses intelligent sensors to monitor the preci-
sion in the assembly processes. The device proposed fol-
lows the assembly line stages and provides advices and
feedback to employees. Another example is the Fujitsu
IT Company, whose solution is oriented to Technology
Management and Operations Strategy areas. In the
case of Fujitsu, it could be observed that projects can
be tested using IoT. Further, the company also utilizes
other technologies such as cloud computing, cloud ser-
vice and big data to evaluate and control the environ-
mental impact of its projects.
The use of CPS are prevalent in the successful cases
analyzed, especially when related to technology man-
agement and Just-in-Time manufacturing areas. One
example is the case of the chemical company CHT, which
provides a human–machine network interface system
to monitor in real time the production and to register
all parameters of processes. The reduction of manufac-
turing costs as well as increase safety of all processes
realized in the facility are also important consequences.
The analysis of the cases shows a concentration of
the use of technologies in the technology management
and Just-in-Time manufacturing areas. The cases classi-
fied in the quality management area presented low use
of technologies taking into consideration the fact that
sometimes the cases do not provide sufficient evidence
to identify the technologies used. In spite of the low
number of technologies observed in the cases classified
in the quality management area, it is expected that the
implementation of Industry 4.0 in automation of manu-
facturing processes could increase the precision of the
activities, resulting in general quality enhancement.
5.  Final considerations
The purpose of this article is to identify the contribution
of Industry 4.0 applications to companies in the manage-
ment of their operations. A total of 38 success cases were
reported in conferences database in the area, as well as
government reports about Industry 4.0 implementation.
The data collection was complemented by information
from companies websites and other publications about
the case reported. Most of the cases analyzed were clas-
sified at an incipient maturity level, restricted to monitor-
ing the activities. Regarding the technologies most used
in the Industry 4.0 implementation the results shown
IoT as more used, followed by CPS and mobile devices,
respectively.
Two contributions of this study can be highlighted.
The first is to emphasize the importance of having a
wider range of possibilities in terms of contributions for
operations management. Although the maturity level of
the successful cases analyzed is still in an initial stage,

abundant number of contributions were verified. This
characteristic reinforces the holistic approach to Industry
4.0 and its capacity to reach a systemic increase of perfor-
mance in companies. Even if some conceptualizations of
Industry 4.0 are restricted to information exchange and
self-control of manufacturing systems [21], cases incor-
porating value chain view [6,22] show great adherence
to the sample analyzed.
The second contribution is aimed at identifying the
possibilities that Industry 4.0 can offer to operations
management, as well as the technologies used in the
case. Despite the fact that an implementation roadmap
for Industry 4.0 is not presented, the success cases
observed reinforce the knowledge about the potential
of these technologies and their potential contributions
to operations management. In addition, the identifica-
tion of technologies associated with OM areas can help
to understand how Industry 4.0 can improve the perfor-
mance of the operations in companies. The know-how
necessary in order to harness digital technologies and
take advantage of all it can do to improve manufactur-
ing processes is a way of boarding in the fourth indus-
trial revolution. This know-how can also overcome lack
of knowledge to its implementation pointed out in the
literature [25,26,30].
Several are the limitations that can be verified
throughout this work. First, its challenging to perform
the sampling of successful cases of Industry 4.0 imple-
mentation. The database of the proccedings recom-
mended by the literature did not present enough cases
in order to carry out the survey. Second, the information
available from these cases was insufficient and needed
to be supplemented from other sources, as company’s
website and other publications about the case. This
lack of detailed information in some cases analyzed
hindered the identification of the technologies used
and the real benefits and improvements reached by its
implementation. Third, there is no known mechanism
through reach one can track the end result and there-
fore verify an advantages outcome brought about by
Industry 4.0.
Finally, the recommendations for future work are
to undertake a survey in order to measure the effect
of Industry 4.0 technologies implementation on the
organizations’ performance. It is important for this
measurement to take into account such characteristics
of organizations, as social, politics and climate, as rec-
ommended in the literature [105]. The survey of more
successful cases can also contribute to the dissemina-
tion of its use. Another recommendation would be the
development of basic “toolkits” for the implementation
of these technologies. These toolkits should be capable
of overcoming a common barrier for initial implemen-
tation, lack of knowledge, which is verified in traditional
manufacturing processes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND PRODUCTION ENGINEERING   9
Notes on contributors
Diego Castro Fettermann is an associate adjunct professor at
the Department of Production and Systems Engineering of
the UFSC, Florianópolis, Brazil. He teaches courses in Statistics
and New Product Development for undergraduate and grad-
uate students. He has experience in the areas of new product
development, lean systems, and mass customization.
Caroline Gobbo Sá Cavalcante is a master’s student at the
Department of Production and Systems Engineering of the
UFSC, Florianópolis, Brazil. She has experience in the areas of
new product development and IoT systems.
Tatiana Domingues de Almeida is a master’s student at the
Department of Production and Systems Engineering of the
UFSC, Florianópolis, Brazil. She has experience in the areas
of new product development and business models for IoT
environment.
Guilherme Luz Tortorella is an associate adjunct professor
at the Department of Production and Systems Engineering
of the UFSC, Florianópolis, Brazil. He teaches courses in
Operations Management for undergraduate and graduate
students. He has experience in the areas of lean systems and
operations management.
ORCID
Diego Castro Fettermann   http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9210-
8622
Caroline Gobbo Sá Cavalcante   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
9372-9962
Guilherme Luz Tortorella   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2396-
4665
References
 [1] Lu Y. Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications
and open research issues. J Ind Inf Integr. 2017;6:1–10. DOI:
10.1016/j.jii.2017.04.005
 [2]  Brettel M, Friederichsen N, Keller M, et al. How
virtualization, decentralization and network building
change the manufacturing landscape: an Industry 4.0
perspective. Int J Mech Ind Sci Eng. 2014;8(1):37–44.
  [3] Deloitte. Industry 4.0 challenges and solutions for
the digital transformation and use of exponential
technologies. 2014. Deloitte Website. [cited 2017 May
25]. Available from: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/
dam/Deloitte/ch/Documents/manufacturing/ch-en-
manufacturing-industry-4-0-24102014.pdf
  [4] Shrouf F, Ordieres J, Miragliotta G. Smart factories in
Industry 4.0: a review of the concept and of energy
management approached in production based on the
Internet of Things paradigm. In: 2014 IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management (IEEM); IEEE; 2014. p. 697–701. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2014.7058728
  [5] Stock T, Seliger G. Opportunities of sustainable
manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP.
2016;40:536–541. DOI:10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.129
  [6] Kagermann H, Wahlster W, Helbig J. Recommendations
for implementing the strategic initiative Industrie 4.0.
Final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group; 2013.
  [7] Lee J, Bagheri B, Kao HA. A cyber-physical systems
architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing
systems. Manuf Lett. 2015;3:18–23.
10   D. C. FETTERMANN ET AL.
  [8] 
Davis J, Edgar T, Porter J, et al. Smart manufacturing,  
manufacturing intelligence and demand-dynamic performance.
Comput Chem Eng. 2012;47:145–156.  
  [9]  Gorecky, D, Schmitt, M, Loskyll, M et al. Human-
machine-interaction in the industry 4.0 era. In: 12th  
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics
(INDIN); IEEE; 2014 Jul. p. 289–294.
  [10] Sonntag D, Zillner S, Van der Smagt P, et al. Overview  
of the CPS for smart factories project: deep learning,
knowledge acquisition, anomaly detection and
intelligent user interfaces. In: Industrial internet of  
things. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017.
p. 487–504.
 [11]  Wiesmüller M. Industrie 4.0: surfing the wave? e & i
Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik. 2014;131(7):197–197.
DOI:10.1007/s00502-014-0217-x
  [12] Ren A, Wu D, Zhang W, et al. Cyber security in smart  
manufacturing: survey and challenges. Proceedings of
the 2017 Industrial and Systems Engineering Conference;
2017 May 20–23; Institute of Industrial and Systems  
Engineers (IISE), Pittsburgh (PA), USA. p. 716–721.
 [13] Dou R, Nan G. Optimizing sensor network coverage and
regional connectivity in industrial IoT systems. IEEE Syst J. 2015.
DOI:10.1109/JSYST.2015.2443045
  [14] Chang SI, Chang IC, Li HJ, et al. The study of intelligent
manufacturing internal control mechanism by using a  
perspective of the production cycle. J Ind and Prod Eng.
2014;31(3):119–127.
  [15] Jha A, Pratihar, DK, Tiwari, MK. Many-objective energy
efficient scheduling with load management in intelligent
manufacturing systems. Proceedings of the 2017
Industrial and Systems Engineering Conference; 2017  
May 20–23; Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers
(IISE), Pittsburgh (PA), USA. p. 151–156.
 [16] Evans PC, Annunziata M. Industrial internet: pushing the
boundaries of minds and machines. Gen Eletric. 2012. GE
Website. [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: https://www.  
ge.com/docs/chapters/Industrial_Internet.pdf
 [17] Lasi H, Kemper HG. Industry 4.0. Bus & Inf Syst Eng.
2014;6(4):239–242. DOI:10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4  
 [18]  Thames L, Schaefer D. Software-defined cloud
manufacturing for Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP.
2016;52:12–17. DOI:10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.041  
  [19] Shafiq SI, Sanin C, Szczerbicki E, et al. Virtual engineering
object/virtual engineering process: a specialized form of
cyber physical system for Industrie 4.0. Procedia Comput  
Sci. 2015;60:1146–1155.
  [20] Hofmann E, Rüsch M. Industry 4.0 and the current status
as well as future prospects on logistics. Comput Ind.  
2017;89:23–34.
  [21] Weyer S, Schmitt M, Ohmer M, et al. Towards Industry
4.0 – standardization as the crucial challenge for highly
modular, multi-vendor production systems. IFAC-  
PapersOnLine. 2015;48(3):579–584.
 [22] Hermann M, Pentek T, Otto B. Design principles for
Industrie 4.0 scenarios. Proceedings of 49th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS);
Koloa (HI) USA; 2016. p. 3928–3937. DOI:10.1109/  
HICSS.2016.488
 [23] Schumacher A, Erol S, Sihn W. A maturity model for
assessing Industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of
manufacturing enterprises. Procedia CIRP. 2016;52:161–  
166. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.040
  [24] Kluth A, Jäguer J, Schatz A, et al. Method for a systematic
evaluation of advanced complexity management  
maturity. Procedia CIRP. 2014;19:69–74.
[25] Drath R, Horch A. Industrie 4.0: hit or hype? IEEE Ind Electron
Mag. 2014. DOI:10.1109/MIE.2014.2312079
[26] Ford M. Industry 4.0: who benefits? SMT Surf Mount
Technol Mag. 2015;30(7):52–55.
[27] Holmström J, Romme AGL. Guest editorial: five steps
towards exploring the future of operations management.
Oper Manage Res. 2012;5(1–2):37–42.
[28] Almada-Lobo F. The Industry 4.0 revolution and the
future of manufacturing execution systems (MES). J
Innovation Manage. 2016;3(4):16–21.
[29] Cordeiro GO, Deschamps F, de Lima EP. Developing
a big data/analytics project: a case study in the auto
industry. Proceedings of the 2017 Industrial and Systems
Engineering Conference; 2017 May 20–23. Institute of
Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE), Pittsburgh, PA,
USA. p. 1753–1758.
[30] Qin J, Liu Y, Grosvenor R. A categorical framework of
manufacturing for Industry 4.0 and beyond. Procedia
CIRP. 2016;52:173–178.
[31] Shinohara AC, da Silva EHDR, de Lima EP, et al. Critical
success factors for digital manufacturing implementation
in the context of Industry 4.0. Proceedings of the 2017
Industrial and Systems Engineering Conference; 2017
May 20–23; Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers
(IISE); Pittsburgh (PA), USA. p. 199–204.
[32] Tamás P, Illés B, Dobos P. Waste reduction possibilities
for manufacturing systems in the industry 4.0. In: IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
IOP Publishing; 2016. Vol. 161(1), p. 012074. [cited 2017
Aug 13]. Available from: http://iopscience.iop.org/
article/10.1088/1757-899X/161/1/012074/meta
[33] Albers A, Gladysz B, Pinner T, et al. Procedure for defining
the system of objectives in the initial phase of an Industry
4.0 project focusing on intelligent quality control
systems. Procedia CIRP. 2016;52:262–267. DOI:10.1016/j.
procir.2016.07.067
[34] Lee J, Kao HA, Yang S. Service innovation and smart
analytics for Industry 4.0 and big data environment.
Procedia CIRP. 2014; 16: 3–8.
[35] Gubbi J, Buyya R, Marusic S, et al. Internet of Things (IoT):
a vision, architectural elements, and future directions.
Future Gener Comput Syst. 2013;29(7):1645–1660.
[36] Lee I, Lee K. The Internet of Things (IoT): applications,
investments, and challenges for enterprises. Bus
Horizons. 2015;58(4):431–440.
[37] Macias JAG, Alvarez-Lozano J, Estrada P, et al. Browsing
the internet of things with sentient visors. Computer.
2011;44(5):46–52. DOI:10.1109/MC.2011.128
[38] Rao BP, Saluia P, Sharma N, et al. Cloud computing for
internet of things & sensing based applications. In: Sensing
Technology (ICST), 2012 Sixth International Conference on
IEEE. 2012. p. 374–380. DOI:10.1109/ICSensT.2012.6461705
[39]  PwC. Industry 4.0: building the digital enterprise:
global Industry 4.0 survey. 2016. [cited 2017 May 27].
Available from: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/
industries-4.0/landing-page/industry-4.0-building-your-
digital-enterprise-april-2016.pdf
[40] Botta A, de Donato W, Persico V, et al. Integration of
cloud computing and internet of things: a survey. Future
Gener Comput Syst. 2016;56:684–700. DOI:https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.future.2015.09.021
[41] Hashem IAT, Yaqoob I, Anuar NB, et al. The rise of “big
data” on cloud computing: review and open research
issues. Inf Syst. 2015;47:98–115.
[42] Mell P, Grance T. The NIST definition of cloud computing.
National Inst Stand Technol (Special Publication 800-145):

1–7. 2011. [cited 2017 Aug]. Available from: http://www.  
neopartner.be/Documents/NIST%20Definition%20
of%20Cloud%20Computing.pdf
  [43] Bagheri B, Yang S, Kao HA, et al. Cyber-physical systems  
architecture for self-aware machines in Industry 4.0
environment. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2015;48(3):1622–  
1627. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.318
 [44]  Guo B, Zhang D, Wang Z, et al. Opportunistic IoT:  
exploring the harmonious interaction between human
and the internet of things. J Network Comput Appl.
2013;36(6):1531–1539.
  [45] Hsu HP. The development of a RFID and agent-based
lot management controller for PROMIS in a client/  
server structure for IC assembly firm. J Ind Prod Eng.
2015;32(8):538–550.
  [46] Li X, Li D, Wan J, et al. A review of industrial wireless
networks in the context of Industry 4.0. Wirel Networks.  
2017;23(1):23–41.
 [47]  CNI. Indústria 4.0: novo desafio para a ndústria
brasileira. 2016. CNI Website. [cited 2017 May 20].  
Available from: http://www.portaldaindustria.com.
br/relacoesdotrabalho/media/publicacao/chamadas/
SondEspecial_Industria4.0_Abril2016.pdf  
  [48] Kang HS, Lee JY, Choi S, et al. Smart manufacturing: past
research, present findings, and future directions. Int J
Preci Eng Manuf-Green Technol. 2016;3(1):111–128.  
  [49] Wan J, Cai H, Zhou K. Industrie 4.0: enabling technologies.
Intelligent Computing and Internet of Things (ICIT). In:
International Conference on Intelligent Computing and  
Internet of Things (ICIT); 2015. p. 135. DOI:https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICAIOT.2015.7111555
  [50] Kietzmann J, Pitt L, Berthon P. Disruptions, decisions, and  
destinations: enter the age of 3-D printing and additive
manufacturing. Bus Horizons. 2015;58(2):209–215.
  [51] Schubert C, van Langeveld MC, Donoso LA. Innovations  
in 3D printing: a 3D overview from optics to organs. Br J
Ophthalmol. 2014;98(2):159–161.  
  [52] Hozdić E. Smart factory for Industry 4.0: a review. Int J
Mod Manuf Technol. 2015;2(1):2067–3604.  
 [53]  Wang L, Törngren M, Onori M. Current status
and advancement of cyber-physical systems in
manufacturing. J Manuf Syst. 2015:37(Part 2);517–527.
 [54]  Monostori L. Cyber-physical production systems:  
roots, expectations and R&D challenges. Procedia CIRP.
2014;17:9–13.
  [55] Zuehlke D. SmartFactory – towards a factory-of-things.
Ann Rev Control. 2010;34(1):129–138.  
  [56] Sommer L. Industrial revolution-industry 4.0: Are German
manufacturing SMEs the first victims of this revolution?
J Ind Eng Manage. 2015;8(5):1512.
  [57] Gilchrist, A. Introducing Industry 4.0. In: Industry 4.0.  
Berkley (CA): Apress; 2016. p. 195–215. DOI:https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4842-2047-4_13
  [58] Wang S, Wan J, Zhang D, et al. Towards smart factory for
industry 4.0: a self-organized multi-agent system with  
big data based feedback and coordination. Comput
Networks. 2016;101:158–168.
  [59] Thames L, Schaefer D. Industry 4.0: an overview of key  
benefits, technologies, and challenges. In: Cybersecurity
for Industry 4.0. Springer International Publishing. p.
1–33. [cited 2017 Aug 13]. Available from: https://link.  
springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-50660-9_1
  [60] Saucedo-Martínez JA, Pérez-Lara M, Marmolejo-Saucedo
JA, et al. Industry 4.0 framework for management and  
operations: a review. J Ambient Intell Humanized
Comput. 2017:1–13.
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND PRODUCTION ENGINEERING   11
[61]  Paulk M. Capability maturity model for software.
Encycl Software Eng. 2002. DOI:https://doi.
org/10.1002/0471028959.sof589
[62] Kwak YH, Ibbs CW. Project management process maturity
(PM) 2 model. J Manage Eng. 2002;18(3):150–155.
[63]  Kosieradzka A. Maturity model for production
management. Procedia Eng. 2017;182:342–349.
[64] Rockwell Automation. The connected enterprise maturity
model 2014. Rockwell automation. 2014. [cited 2017 Apr
30]. Available from: http://literature.rockwellautomation.
com/idc/groups/literature/documents/wp/cie-wp002_-
en-p.pdf
[65] Lanza G, Haefner B, Kraemer A. Optimization of selective
assembly and adaptive manufacturing by means of
cyber-physical system based matching. CIRP Annals-
Manuf Technol. 2015;64(1):399–402.
[66]  Porter ME, Heppelmann JE. How smart, connected
products are transforming competition. Harvard Bus
Rev. 2015;92(11):64–88.
[67]  Sullivan RS. The service sector: challenges and
imperatives for research in operations management. J
Oper Manage. 1982;2(4):211–214.
[68] Choi TY, Wacker JG. Theory building in the OM/SCM field:
pointing to the future by looking at the past. J Supply
Chain Manage. 2011;47(2):8–11.
[69] Rungtusanatham MJ, Choi TY, Hollingworth DG, et al.
Survey research in operations management: historical
analyses. J Oper Manage. 2003;21:475–488.
[70] Fullerton RR, McWatters CS. The production performance
benefits from JIT implementation. J Oper Manage.
2001;19:81–96.
[71] Ptak CA. MRP and beyond: a toolbox for integrating
people and systems. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill, Inc.;
1986.
[72] Swanson CA, Lankford WM. Just-in-time manufacturing.
Bus Process Manage J. 1998;4(4):333–341.
[73] Pavitt K. What we know about the strategic management
of technology. Calif Manage Rev. 1990;32(3):17–26.
[74] Liao Y, Deschamps F, Loures EFR, et al. Past, present
and future of Industry 4.0 – a systematic literature
review and research agenda proposal. Int J Product Res.
2017;55(12):3609–3629.
[75] Erensal YC, Öncan T, Demircan ML. Determining key
capabilities in technology management using fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Turkey. Inf
Sci. 2006;176:2755–2770.
[76]  Zehner B The management of technology (MOT)
degree: a bridge between technology and strategic
management. Technol Anal Strategic Manage. 2000;
12(2):283–291.
[77] Jagoda K, Kiridena S. Operations strategy processes
and performance: insights from the contract apparel
manufacturing industry. J Manuf Technol Manage.
2015;26(2):261–279.
[78] Malhotra MK, Steele DC, Grover V. Important strategic
and tactical manufacturing issues in the 1990s. Dec Sci.
1994;25(2):189–214.
[79] Terziovski M. Quality management practices and their
relationship with customer satisfaction and productivity
improvement. Manage Res News. 2006;29(7):414–424.
[80]  Kaynak H. The relationship between total quality
management practices and their effects on firm
performance. J Oper Manage. 2003;21:405–435.
[81] Zeng J, Anh PC, Matsui Y. Shop-floor communication and
process management for quality performance. Manage
Res Rev. 2013;36(5):454–477.
12   D. C. FETTERMANN ET AL.
  [82] Linton JD, Klassen R, Jayaraman V. Sustainable supply
chains: an introduction. J Oper Manage. 2007;25:1075–
1082.
  [83] Hitt MA, Xu K, Carnes CM. Resource based theory in
operations management research. J Oper Manage.
2016;41:77–94.
  [84] Fettermann DC, Echeveste MES, ten Caten CS. When and
how to use the online configurator in the Automobile
Industry. IEEE Latin Am Transac. 2012;10(6):2331–2341.
DOI:10.1109/TLA.2012.6418140
 [85]  Fettermann DDC, Echeveste MES. New product
development for mass customization: a systematic
review. Prod Manuf Res. 2014;2(1):266–290. DOI:https://
doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2014.910715
  [86] Fettermann DC, Echeveste MES, Tortorella GL.
The benchmarking of the use of toolkit for mass
customization in the automobile industry. Benchmarking
Int J. 2017;24(6):1767–1783. DOI:10.1108/BIJ-01-2016-
0002
  [87] Tortorella, GL, de Castro Fettermann, D, Marodin, GA, et
al. Lean product development (LPD) Enablers for product
development process improvement. In: Research
advances in industrial engineering. Cham: Springer
International Publishing; 2015. p. 31–57.
  [88] Jasti NR, Kodali R. Lean production: literature review and
trends. Int J Prod Res. 2015;53(3):867–885.
 [89]  Womack J, Jones D, Roos D. The machine that
changed the world: the story of lean production –
Toyota’s secret weapon in the global car wars that is
revolutionizing world industry. 1st ed. New York (NY):
Free Press; 2007.
  [90] Seppälä P, Klemola S. How do employees perceive their
organization and job when companies adopt principles
of lean production? Human Factors Ergono Manuf
Service Ind. 2004;14(2):157–180.
  [91] Dworschak B, Zaiser H. Competences for cyber-physical
systems in manufacturing – first findings and scenarios.
Procedia CIRP. 2014;25:345–350.
  [92] Tortorella GL, Fettermann D. Implementation of Industry
4.0 and lean production in Brazilian manufacturing
companies. Int J Prod Res. Forthcoming 2017 [April 15,
2018]:1–13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.201
7.1391420
  [93] Yin RK. Applications of case study research. Thousand
Oaks (CA): Sage; 2011.
 [94]  Plataform Industrie 4.0. Map of Industrie 4.0 use
cases. 2017. PlataformI4.0 website. [cited 2017 Apr
30]. Available from: http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/
Navigation/EN/InPractice/Map/map.html
 [95] RRI – Robotic Revolution Initiative. Map of Industrie
4.0 use cases. 2017. [cited 2017 Apr 30]. Available from:
http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
  [96] Everitt BS. The analysis of contingency tables. Boca Raton
(FL): CRC Press; 1992.
 [97]  Burmeister C, Lüttgens D, Piller FT. Business model
innovation for Industrie 4.0: why the “industrial internet”
mandates a new perspective on innovation. Die
Unternehmung. 2016;70(2):124–152. DOI:10.5771/0042-
059X-2016-2-124
 [98] Preuveneers D, Ilie-Zudor E. The intelligent industry
of the future: a survey on emerging trends, research
challenges and opportunities in Industry 4.0. J Ambient
Intell Smart Environ. 2017;9(3):287–298.
  [99] Schuh G, Potente T, Wesch-Potente C, et al. Collaboration
mechanisms to increase productivity in the context of
Industrie 4.0. Procedia CIRP. 2014;19:51–56. DOI:10.1016/j.
procir.2014.05.016
[100] Schwab K. The fourth industrial revolution. New York
(NY): Crown Business; 2017.
[101] Ganzarain J, Errasti N. Three stage maturity model in SME’s
toward industry 4.0. J Ind Eng Manage. 2016;9(5):1119–
1128. DOI:10.3926/jiem.2073
[102] Berman B. 3-D printing: the new industrial revolution.
Bus Horizons. 2012;55(2):155–162. DOI:10.1016/j.
bushor.2011.11.003
[103] Holmström J, Holweg M, Khajavi SH, et al. The direct
digital manufacturing (r) evolution: definition of a
research agenda. Oper Manage Res. 2016;9(1–2):1–10.
[104] Cao Q, Schniederjans DG, Schniederjans M. Establishing
the use of cloud computing in supply chain management.
Oper Manage Res. 2017;10(1–2):47–63. DOI:10.1007/
s12063-017-0123-6
[105]  Echeveste, MES, Rozenfeld, H, Fettermann, DDC.
Customizing practices based on the frequency of problems
in new product development process. Concurrent Eng,
2017;25(3): 245–261. DOI:10.1177/1063293X16686154
Appendix 1. Cases analyzed

Company Description Technologies OM area Maturity Level Main source

Fraunhofer IWU e iMain Smart maintenance of machines Cloud computing, IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/352-fraunhofer-iwu-
gy management imain-en/article-fraunhofer-iwu-imain.html
Informantis Wearable intelligent for hazardous Augmented reality, IoT Technology management Monitoring http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/106-intelli-
situations gente-wearables-for-identifying-danger/article-intelligente-weara-
bles-for-identifying-danger.html
Acs Automotive center Self-learning manufacturing process to Data analysis and Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Optimization http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/340-automo-
improve productivity processing, IoT gy management tive-center-zero-mistakes/article-automotive-center.html
Wolffkran Smart cranes with self-learning IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Control http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/344-insys-icom-en/
gy management article-insys-microelectronics.html
Bosch Packaging Modular packaging automation Cloud computing, IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Tech- Control http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/325-it-shopfloor-
nology management, Supply chain solutions-bosch/article-it-shopfloor-solutions-bosch.html
management
HBM Automated measurement and quality Data analysis and Just-in-time manufacturing, Quality Optimization http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/253-measure-
system processing, IoT management, Technology manage- ment-technology-for-both-development-and-production-hottinger-baldwin/
ment article-measurement-technology-for-both-development-and-production.
html
Volkswagen Use of augmented reality use for picking Augmented reality Just-in-time manufacturing, Tech- Monitoring http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/261a-xpick-ubimax-
materials nology management, Supply chain volkswagen-en/article-pick-by-vision.html
management
Thyssenkrupp Data management of the products into Mobile devices, IoT, Cy- Just-in-time manufacturing, Technol- Control http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/077-camshaft-pro-
its life cycle and including its manu- ber-physical systems ogy management, Quality manage- duction-in-ilsenburg/article-camshaft-production-in-ilsenburg.html
facturing process. ment, Supply chain management
Lenze Managing product data in its life cycle IoT Quality management, Technology man- Monitoring http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/322-lenze-traceabil-
agement, Just-in-time manufactur- ity-of-electronic-devices/article-traceability-of-electronic-devices.html
ing, Supply chain management
CHT Monitoring and control of the manufac- Cyber-physical systems Technology management, Just-in-time Control http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/364-cht-crosslinked-
turing process. manufacturing process-control/article-cht.html
Ruch NovaPlast Monitoring and control of the manufac- Cyber-physical systems Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Control http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/139-produc-
turing process. gy management ing-more-efficient-mes-hydra/article-producing-more-efficient-with-mes-hy-
dra.html
Bender System integrated to ERP to monitoring IoT, Cyber-physical Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/260-bender-fi-
of the manufacturing process. systems gy management, Operations strategy nal-assembly-plant/bender-final-assemly-plant.html
Voith Turbo System integrated to ERP to monitoring IoT, Cyber-physical Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/345-armbruster-en-
of the manufacturing process. systems gy management, Operations strategy gineering-en/article-armbrutster-engineering.html
Humanitarian Logistics Monitoring of material logistic flows Mobile devices, IoT Technology management, Supply chain Monitoring http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/057-integrated-hu-
Organization (HLO) during the distribution process management manitarian-logistics-at-hlo/article-integrated-humanitarian-logistics-at-hlo.
html
Audi Augmented reality system for monitor- Augmented reality, IoT Quality management, Technology Monitoring http://www.plattform-i40.de/I40/Redaktion/EN/Use-Cases/064-motioneap-as-
ing assembly activities management sistive-systems-integrated-directly-into-the-workplace/article-motioneap-as-
sistive-systems-integrated-directly-into-the-workplace.html
Gifu Tada Seiki Process monitoring to improve quality IoT Quality management, Technology man- Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
of the product agement, Just-in-time manufacturing
Fujitsu Process and product monitoring using Cloud computing, IoT Technology management, Operations Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
cloud computing strategy
Hitach Manufacturing system with use of Cyber-physical systems Technology management, Just-in-time Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND PRODUCTION ENGINEERING 

robots manufacturing

(Continued)
 13
 14 

Appendix. (Continued)
Company Description Technologies OM area Maturity Level Main source
Mazda Data system integrated, with informa- Data analysis and Operations strategy, Technology man- Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
tion of products, design, machines processing agement, Supply chain management
and customers available and pro-
cessed in the cloud.
Paltek Security of data transmission systems Cloud computing, IoT Technology management Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
among devices and machines.
NEC Sales forecasting and inventory man- Data analysis and Supply chain management, Technology Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
agement processing management
IHI Monitoring and sharing of information Cloud computing, Just-in-time manufacturing, Tech- Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
 D. C. FETTERMANN ET AL.

from manufacturing process Mobile devices, nology management, Supply chain

IoT, Cyber-physical management
systems
Mitsubishi electric Sharing manufacturing process Cloud computing, IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Operations Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
corporation information to improve operations strategy, Technology management,
management Supply chain management
Sanyo denki Integrated system of work instructions IoT Technology management, Quality Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
available on the shop floor management
JIN Augmented reality to improve worker Cloud computing, Technology management Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
safety Mobile devices
Cosel Monitoring of manufacturing process to IoT, Cyber-physical Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
improve its efficiency systems gy management
Nakamura-Tome preci- Integrated monitoring of the efficiency Mobile devices, IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
sion industry of manufacturing process gy management, Operations strategy
No name Monitoring of parts during the manu- IoT, Cyber-physical Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
facturing process systems gy management
Kubota An agricultural monitoring system IoT, Mobile devices Technology management, Operations Monitoring http://usecase.jmfrri.jp/#/en
strategy
Polibol Monitoring of shop floor environment IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://www.libelium.com/smart-factory-reducing-maintenance-costs-ensur-
conditions for worker safety gy management ing-quality-manufacturing-process/
Inblay Technology Monitoring of temperature and vibra- IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://www.libelium.com/preventive_maintenance_industrial_motors_m2 m/
tion of motors gy management
Harley-Davidson A system of monitoring and control of Cyber-physical systems Just-in-time manufacturing, Technol- Control https://daue6ehqissah.cloudfront.net/breakouts/2014/0921_v-man-01_manu-
the productive process ogy management, Quality manage- facturing%20business.pdf
ment, Operations strategy
De Walt Monitoring of equipment and batteries IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring https://daue6ehqissah.cloudfront.net/breakouts/2014/0904_meg-02-iot%20
with Bluetooth communication gy management customer%20panel-best%20practices.pdf
Stanley Black & Decker Monitoramento de níveis de estoque e IoT Technology management, Supply chain Autonomy http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/industries/manufacturing/connect-
movimentação de materiais e entre- management ed-factory/automation/stanley-black-decker.html
gas para melhorar a eficiência
Heidelberger druck- Monitoring the operation of the devices. IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://www.ptc.com/~/media/files/pdfs/case-studies/j6684%20heidelberg%20
maschinen ag gy management cs_en_v1b.pdf?la=en
CNH industrial n.v. Vehicle fleet monitoring IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://www.ptc.com/~/media/files/pdfs/iot/j6081_cnh_industrial_case_study_
gy management final_11-12-15.pdf?la=en
Orbotech Monitoring of manufacturing and Mobile devices, IoT Just-in-time manufacturing, Technolo- Monitoring http://www.ptc.com/internet-of-things/customer-success/orbotech
control processes gy management, Operations strategy