Search results

This work aims at proposing a novel Internet of Things (IoT)-based and cloud-assisted monitoring architecture for smart manufacturing systems able to evaluate their overall status and detect eventual anomalies occurring into the production. A novel artificial intelligence (AI) based technique, able to identify the specific anomalous event and the related risk classification for possible intervention, is hence proposed.

The proposed solution is a five-layer scalable and modular platform in Industry 5.0 perspective, where the crucial layer is the Cloud Cyber one. This embeds a novel anomaly detection solution, designed by leveraging control charts, autoencoders (AE) long short-term memory (LSTM) and Fuzzy Inference System (FIS). The proper combination of these methods allows, not only detecting the products defects, but also recognizing their causalities.

The proposed architecture, experimentally validated on a manufacturing system involved into the production of a solar thermal high-vacuum flat panel, provides to human operators information about anomalous events, where they occur, and crucial information about their risk levels.

Thanks to the abnormal risk panel; human operators and business managers are able, not only of remotely visualizing the real-time status of each production parameter, but also to properly face with the eventual anomalous events, only when necessary. This is especially relevant in an emergency situation, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The monitoring platform is one of the first attempts in leading modern manufacturing systems toward the Industry 5.0 concept. Indeed, it combines human strengths, IoT technology on machines, cloud-based solutions with AI and zero detect manufacturing strategies in a unified framework so to detect causalities in complex dynamic systems by enabling the possibility of products’ waste avoidance.

Smart services have gained attention both among academics and practitioners, but manufacturing firms struggle in getting their new smart services extensively adopted by customers, employees and distributors. The purpose of this paper is to identify and analyse the requirements of different actors and the interconnectedness between their requirements in introducing smart services.

An embedded single-case study was conducted with a manufacturing firm and its network, including its sales and service personnel, customers and external salespeople. Data were collected via 30 in-depth interviews.

The paper advances the multi-actor perspective by identifying the requirements of key actors for introducing smart services. These requirements were divided into eight categories: value of smart services, reliability of smart services, competence for smart services, data security and management, attitude towards services, reliance, knowledge of installed base of equipment and services and service reputation. The findings reveal the interconnectedness of different actors’ requirements for introducing new smart services and how discussion and relationships between actors affected their requirements.

The findings represent a comprehensive template of requirements, as well as mapping the interconnectedness of actors’ requirements, serving as a practical guideline for managers.

This study characterises the introduction of smart services as a multi-dimensional, interconnected effort by manufacturing firms and their networks. It shows that service introduction cannot be viewed as manufacturer’s development task or customers’ adoption decision only. Propositions are offered on how multiple actors’ viewpoints can be combined to achieve success in introducing smart services.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how different manufacturing technologies are bundled together and how these bundles influence operations performance and, indirectly, business performance. With the emergence of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technologies, manufacturing companies can use a wide variety of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMT) to build an efficient and effective production system. Nevertheless, the literature offers little guidance on how these technologies, including novel I4.0 technologies, should be combined in practice and how these combinations might have a different impact on performance.

Using a survey study of 165 manufacturing plants from 11 different countries, we use factor analysis to empirically derive three distinct manufacturing technology bundles and structural equation modeling to quantify their relationship with operations and business performance.

Our findings support an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary perspective. I4.0 technologies build on traditional manufacturing technologies and do not constitute a separate direction that would point towards a fundamental digital transformation of companies within our sample. Performance effects are rather weak: out of the three technology bundles identified, only “automation and robotization” have a positive influence on cost efficiency, while “base technologies” and “data-enabled technologies” do not offer a competitive advantage, neither in terms of cost nor in terms of differentiation. Furthermore, while the business performance impact is positive, it is quite weak, suggesting that financial returns on technology investments might require longer time periods.

Relying on a complementarity approach, our research offers a novel perspective on technology implementation in the I4.0 era by investigating novel and traditional manufacturing technologies together.

A maturity model for Industry 4.0 (I4.0 MM) with influencing factors is designed to address maturity issues in adopting Industry 4.0. Standardisation in I4.0 supports manufacturing industry transformation, forming reference architecture models (RAMs). This paper aligns key factors and maturity levels in I4.0 MMs with reputable I4.0 RAMs to enhance strategy for I4.0 transformation and implementation.

Three steps of alignment consist of the systematic literature review (SLR) method to study the current published high-quality I4.0 MMs, the taxonomy development of I4.0 influencing factors by adapting and implementing the categorisation of system theories and aligning I4.0 MMs with RAMs.

The study discovered that different I4.0 MMs lead to varied organisational interpretations. Challenges and insights arise when aligning I4.0 MMs with RAMs. Aligning MM levels with RAM stages is a crucial milestone in the journey toward I4.0 transformation. Evidence indicates that I4.0 MMs and RAMs often overlook the cultural domain.

Findings contribute to the literature on aligning capabilities with implementation strategies while employing I4.0 MMs and RAMs. We use five RAMs (RAMI4.0, NIST-SME, IMSA, IVRA and IIRA), and as a common limitation in SLR, there could be a subjective bias in reading and selecting literature.

To fully leverage the capabilities of RAMs as part of the I4.0 implementation strategy, companies should initiate the process by undertaking a thorough needs assessment using I4.0 MMs.

The novelty of this paper lies in being the first to examine the alignment of I4.0 MMs with established RAMs. It offers valuable insights for improving I4.0 implementation strategies, especially for companies using both MMs and RAMs in their transformation efforts.

A positive outlook on the impact of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) on sustainability prevails in the literature. However, some studies have highlighted potential areas of concern that have not yet been systematically addressed. The goal of this study is to challenge the assumption of a sustainable Fourth Industrial Revolution by (1) identifying the possible unintended negative impacts of I4.0 technologies on sustainability; (2) highlighting the underlying motivations and potential actions to mitigate such impacts; and (3) developing and evaluating alternative assumptions on the impacts of I4.0 technologies on sustainability.

Building on a problematization approach, a systematic literature review was conducted to develop potential alternative assumptions about the negative impacts of I4.0 on sustainability. Then, a Delphi study was carried out with 43 experts from academia and practice to evaluate the alternative assumptions. Two rounds of data collection were performed until reaching the convergence or stability of the responses.

The results highlight various unintended negative effects on environmental and social aspects that challenge the literature. The reasons behind the high/low probability of occurrence, the severity of each impact in the next five years and corrective actions are also identified. Unintended negative environmental effects are less controversial than social effects and are therefore more likely to generate widely accepted theoretical propositions. Finally, the alternative hypothesis ground is partially accepted by the panel, indicating that the problematization process has effectively opened up new perspectives for analysis.

This study is one of the few to systematically problematize the assumptions of the I4.0 and sustainability literature, generating research propositions that reveal several avenues for future research.

Industry 4.0 defines the application of digital technologies on business infrastructure and processes. With the increasing need to take into account the social and environmental impact of technologies, the concept of Society 5.0 has been proposed to restore the centrality of humans in the proper utilization of technology for the exploitation of innovation opportunities. Despite the identification of humans, resilience and sustainability as the key dimensions of Society 5.0, the definition of the key factors that can enable Innovation in the light of 5.0 principles has not been yet assessed.

An SLR, followed by a content analysis of results and a clustering of the main topics, is performed to (1) identify the key domains and dimensions of the Industry 5.0 paradigm; (2) understand their impact on Innovation 5.0; (3) discuss and reflect on the resulting implications for research, managerial practices and the policy-making process.

The findings allow the elaboration of a multileveled framework to redefine Innovation through the 5.0 paradigm by advancing the need to integrate ICT and technology (Industry 5.0) with the human-centric, social and knowledge-based dimensions (Society 5.0).

The study detects guidelines for managers, entrepreneurs and policy-makers in the adoption of effective strategies to promote human resources and knowledge management for the attainment of multiple innovation outcomes (from technological to data-driven and societal innovation).

The purpose of this paper is to advance the understanding of paradoxes, underlying tensions and potential management strategies when integrating digital technologies into existing lean-based production systems (LPSs), with the aim of achieving synergies and fostering the development of production systems.

This study adopts a collaborative management research (CMR) approach to identify patterns of organisational tensions and paradoxes and explore management strategies to overcome them. The data were collected through interviews and focus group interviews with experts on lean and/or digital technologies from the companies, from documents and from workshops with the in-case researchers.

The findings of this paper provide insights into the salient organisational paradoxes embraced in the integration of digital technologies in LPS by identifying different aspects of the performing, organising, learning and belonging paradoxes. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate the intricacies and relatedness between different paradoxes and their resolutions, and more specifically, how a resolution strategy adopted to manage one paradox might unintentionally generate new tensions. This, in turn, calls for either re-contextualising actions to counteract the drift or the adoption of new resolution strategies.

This paper adds perspective to operations management (OM) research through the use of paradox theory, and we (1) provide a fine-grained perspective on why integration sometimes “fails” and label the forces of internal drift as mechanisms of imbalances and (2) provide detailed insights into how different management and resolution strategies are adopted, especially by identifying re-contextualising actions as a key to rebalancing organisational paradoxes in favour of the integration of digital technologies in LPSs.

The paper proposes a framework for the successful deployment of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) principles in the aerospace industry, based on identified success factors. The paper challenges the perception of I4.0 being aligned with de-skilling and personnel reduction and instead promotes a route to successful deployment centred on upskilling and retaining personnel for future role requirements.

The research methodology involved a literature review and industrial data collection via questionnaires to develop and validate the framework. The questionnaire was sent to a purposive sample of 50 respondents working in operations, and a response rate of 90% was achieved. Content analysis was used to identify patterns, themes, or biases, and the data were tabulated based on specific common attributes. The proposed framework consists of a series of gates and criteria that must be met before progressing to the next gate.

The proposed framework provides a feedback mechanism to review minimum standards for successful deployment, aligned with new developments in capability and technology, and ensures quality assessment at each gate. The paper highlights the potential benefits of I4.0 implementation in the aerospace industry, including reducing operational costs and improving competitiveness by eliminating variation in manufacturing processes. The identified success factors were used to define the framework, and the identified failure points were used to form mitigation actions or controls for inclusion in the framework.

The paper provides a framework for the successful deployment of I4.0 principles in the aerospace industry, based on identified success factors. The framework challenges the perception of I4.0 as being aligned with de-skilling and personnel reduction and instead promotes a route to successful deployment centred on upskilling and retaining personnel for future role requirements. The framework can be used as a guideline for organizations to deploy I4.0 principles successfully and improve competitiveness.