To read this content please select one of the options below:

Smart manufacturing maturity models and their applicability: a review

David Vance (College of Engineering, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA)
Mingzhou Jin (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA)
Christopher Price (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA)
Sachin U. Nimbalkar (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA)
Thomas Wenning (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA)

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

ISSN: 1741-038X

Article publication date: 26 April 2023

Issue publication date: 17 July 2023

568

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to review existing smart manufacturing (SM) maturity models' dimensions and maturity levels to assess their applicability and drawbacks. There are many maturity models available but many of them have not been validated or do not provide a useful guide or tool for applications. This gap creates the need for a review of the existing maturity model's applicability.

Design/methodology/approach

Nineteen peer-reviewed maturity models related to “Digital Transformation,” “Industry 4.0” or “Smart Manufacturing” were selected based on a systematic literature review and five consulting firm models were selected based on the author's industry knowledge. The chosen models were analyzed to determine 10 categories of dimensions. Then they are assessed on a 1–5 scale for how applicable they are in the 10 categories of dimensions.

Findings

The five “consulting firm” models have a first-mover advantage, are more widely used in industry and are more applicable, but some require payment, and they lack published details and validation. The 19 “peer reviewed” models are not as widely used, lack awareness in the industry and are not as easy to apply because of no web tool for self-assessment, but they are improving. The categories defined to characterize the models and facilitate comparisons for users include “Information Technology (IT) and Cyber-Physical System (CPS) and Data,” “Strategy and Organization,” “Supply Chain and Logistics,” “Products and Services,” “Culture and Employees,” “Technology and Capabilities,” “Customer and Market,” “Cybersecurity and Risk,” “Leadership and Management” and “Governance and Compliance.” The analyzed maturity models were particularly weak in the areas of cybersecurity, leadership and governance.

Practical implications

Researchers and practitioners can use this review with consideration of their specific needs to determine if a maturity model is applicable or if a new model needs to be developed. The review can also aid in the development of maturity models through the discussion of each of the dimension categories.

Originality/value

Compared to existing reviews of SM maturity models, this research determines comprehensive dimension categories and focuses on applicability and drawbacks.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

Funding: This research is supported by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office, and the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed and operated by UT-Battelle, LLC. The DOE will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).

Citation

Vance, D., Jin, M., Price, C., Nimbalkar, S.U. and Wenning, T. (2023), "Smart manufacturing maturity models and their applicability: a review", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 735-770. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2022-0103

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles