See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341235159

A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

Conference Paper · August 2020

CITATIONS READS
0 623

6 authors, including:

Hendrik van der Valk Hendrik Haße

Technische Universität Dortmund Fraunhofer Institute for Software and Systems Engineering ISST
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Frederik Möller Michael Arbter

Technische Universität Dortmund Fraunhofer Institute for Software and Systems Engineering ISST
15 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Data Spaces View project

Leistungszentrum Logistik und IT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hendrik van der Valk on 08 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

Completed Research

Hendrik van der Valk Hendrik Haße

TU Dortmund University Fraunhofer ISST, Dortmund
hendrik.van-der-valk@tu-dortmund.de hendrik.hasse@isst.fraunhofer.de
Frederik Möller Michael Arbter
TU Dortmund University Fraunhofer ISST, Dortmund
frederik.moeller@tu-dortmund.de michael.arbter@isst.fraunhofer.de
Jan-Luca Henning Boris Otto
TU Dortmund University Fraunhofer ISST, Dortmund
janluca.henning@tu-dortmund.de boris.otto@isst.fraunhofer.de

Abstract
Since the last few years, the topic of Digital Twins receives considerable attention in research and with
practitioners. A Digital Twin describes the connection between physical and virtual objects. However, a
unified definition for Digital Twins is still missing. While existing literature reviews mainly focus on the
application of Digital Twins, this review is analyzing the explanations, definitions, and elements of the
Digital Twins described in the literature. Based on an examination of 233 papers, this paper proposes a
multi-dimensional taxonomy of a Digital Twin and sorts the most common definitions. The taxonomy
developed in this contribution allows classifying the various definitions and concepts of Digital Twins that
emerged in literature over the years. That may help the reader to gain profound insights into the domain of
Digital Twins.
Keywords
Digital Twin, Literature Review, Taxonomy, Characteristics.
Introduction
The continuous development of information and communication technologies and the progress in the field
of Internet of Things applications lead to an increasing amount of data. The sheer amount of data and the
inherent opportunity to generate and extract new knowledge from them, makes their capture, storage, and
analysis increasingly important (Uhlemann et al. 2017). Data require structured mapping alongside the
entirety of their lifecycle in order to prevent the emergence of information silos in the respective phases of
the lifecycle (Tao et al. 2018). Digital Twins provide a promising approach to solving these issues, as it is
their purpose to link both the physical and digital world through providing digitized representations of
physical objects (Zhao et al. 2019). Beyond a mere representation, Digital Twins encompass, usually, the
incorporation of sensors, which generate data that, in turn, are the basis for further analysis (Chhetri et al.
2019; Xiang et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2017). Thus, the interplay of physical objects interlocked with a digital
representation and sensor technology results in the capability of real-time recording of a condition, which
may trigger a real-world reaction (Chhetri et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2019).
The concept of Digital Twin is currently attracting much attention in research and with practitioners (Zhao
et al. 2019). One particular reason for this are the numerous application areas of Digital Twins (Wagner et
al. 2019), which is particularly evident by their vast array of application domains, such as manufacturing
(Negri et al. 2017; Rosen et al. 2015; Tao and Zhang 2017), logistics (Haße et al. 2019; Korth et al. 2018) or
smart city (Petrova-Antonova and Ilieva 2019). In this regard, Enders and Hoßbach (2019) provide a
classification of the individual application areas of Digital Twins. As part of a comprehensive literature
review, they develop a taxonomy for classifying the domains of Digital Twin applications and emphasize the

Americas Conference on Information Systems 1

 A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

lack of consideration of Digital Twins in IS-Research. Furthermore, they issue a call for the development of
a taxonomy, according to Nickerson et al. (2013), which we aim to answer here.
There is currently no common understanding of the term Digital Twin (Cimino et al. 2019). Also, the various
definitions and concepts depend strongly on the respective application context (Schleich et al. 2017). That
is illustrated, for example, through the frequent entanglement of Digital Twin descriptions with specific
industries, such as manufacturing (Enders and Hoßbach 2019). Thus, a taxnomy would provide a valueable
contribution to fill that research gap, as it helps to demarcate Digital Twin concepts.
To develop the taxonomy, we derive dimensions and characteristics from a literature corpus of 233
publications regardless of their intended use and application. While there are multiple ways to tackle that
issue (e.g., developing a typology or ontology (Bailey 1994)) we chose to design a taxonomy, as it enables
empirical classification of Digital Twins (rather than a conceptual) of data from the literature. Thus, in this
paper, we propose a taxonomy to classify definitions and, more generally, to structure Digital Twin concepts
(Bailey 1994; Glass and Vessey 1995). An additional benefit is, that a taxonomy is a foundation for the
characterization of a domain in IS research (Nickerson et al. 2013).
Based on that, we define our research objectives as follows:
Research Objective 1 (RO1): The development of a taxonomy to classify the central features and
properties of Digital Twins, and order them into meaningful dimensions.
Based on the taxonomy created here, we intend to allocate existing concepts and publications of Digital
Twins into the dimensions developed, which leads to the second research objective.
Research Objective 2 (RO2): Applying the taxonomy to allocate existing concepts and definitions of
Digital Twins.
This paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we briefly state the theoretical background of Digital
Twins. Then we describe the search of the literature and the following literature review process. Further,
we provide an overview of our approach to a taxonomy following Nickerson et al. (2013). We detail the
different dimensions of the taxonomy and discuss the application of the taxonomy on the literature basis.
Finally, we conclude our review and provide our contributions with the resulting further research
opportunities.

Digital Twins: Origin and Definition

The origins of the Digital Twin concept can be traced back to NASA's Apollo project (Rosen et al. 2015). An
identical space capsule was kept on Earth to simulate the behavior of the capsule in space, which mirrors
the notion of having a separate object simulating the effects of another. Yet, the space capsule on Earth was
not a digital representation but a physical one. Thus, this does not describe the connection between a
physical object to its digital representation. The first notion of a Digital Twin can be retraced to Dr. Michael
Grieves of the University of Michigan, who addressed the topic of Digital Twin in his lecture on Product
Lifecycle Management in 2003 (Grieves 2014).
As of now, there is no standard definition of the concept “Digital Twin” (Cimino et al. 2019; Haag and Anderl
2019). The various existing definitions are defined by specific characteristics that derive from multiple use
cases that employ the concept of Digital Twins (Wagner et al. 2019). The understanding of the term Digital
Twin has continuously changed in the course of its development (Eisenträger et al. 2018).
The inconsistent use of the term makes it much more challenging to identify the main components of a
Digital Twin (Josifovska et al. 2019). Thus, that conceptual blurriness spawned numerous adjacent terms,
such as the Digital Shadow or the Digital Angel, which hinders precise usage of the term Digital Twin
(Wagner et al. 2017). Table 1 gives an overview of the definitions that influence our understanding of the
Digital Twin terminology. The common features of the definitions mentioned here are the integration of
various data sources, which allow a digital representation of the physical object or process over its entire
lifecycle. Based on this, various analyses and simulations can be carried out.

Americas Conference on Information Systems 2

 A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

Definition Source
“A Digital Twin is an integrated multiphysics, multiscale, probabilistic simulation of an Glaessgen
as-built vehicle or system that uses the best available physical models, sensor updates, and Stargel
fleet history, etc., to mirror the life of its corresponding flying twin. The Digital Twin is 2012, p. 7
ultra-realistic […] integrates sensor data […] maintenance history and all available
historical and fleet data obtained”
“Digital Twin (DT) […] is a set of virtual information constructs that fully describes a Grieves and
potential or actual physical manufactured product from the micro atomic level to the Vickers 2017,
macro geometrical level. […] That describes […] Operational States captured from actual pp. 94-95
sensor data, current, past actual, and future predicted. […] for a variety of purposes.”

“The Digital Twin concept […] contains three main parts: a) physical products in Real Grieves 2014,
Space, b) virtual products in Virtual Space, and c) the [two-way] connections of data and pp. 1-4
information that ties the virtual and real products together.”
“[A] Digital Twin consists of three parts: physical product, virtual product, and Tao et al.
connected data that tie the physical and virtual product. [...] the following characteristics 2018, p. 3566
of Digital Twin are summarized: (1) Real-time reflection. [...] the virtual space [...] can
keep ultra-high synchronization and fidelity with the physical space. [...]”
Table 1. Exemplary definitions of Digital Twin from the literature

Research Design
Structured Literature Review
The present study aims to provide a taxonomy of Digital Twins based on findings in the relevant literature.
Therefore, we conducted an exhaustive structured literature review (Cooper 1988). The structured
literature review draws from the methodological guidelines of Vom Brocke et al. (2009) and Webster and
Watson (2002). Vom Brocke et al. (2009) propose to define the review scope (step 1), to conceptualize the
topic (step 2), to search the literature (step 3), to analyze it (step 4) and to define the research agenda (step
5). First, we defined the scope of the literature review as papers about Digital Twins published in established
scientific databases (ACM Digital, AIS eLibrary, IEEE Xplore, JSTOR, and Science Direct). In the second
step, we provided working definitions of a Digital Twin for further research. After a quick scan of the
collected literature, we identified the definitions from Table 1 as the most cited ones. In the third step, the
literature search provided 579 papers with the search string “Digital Twin” (see Figure 1). Until 2017, the
number of publications was only in the single-digit range. Since then, the number of yearly publications
grew exponentially. After the collection of possible relevant papers, we conducted the fourth step and
analyzed the literature as well as filtered it based on the following exclusion criteria. First, the term Digital
Twin should either be a keyword, part of the title or be mentioned in the abstract. The application of the
first exclusion criteria led to 382 papers. Next, all papers, which were not accessible, not yet published, as
well as duplicates, were excluded. Additionally in this step, we applied several quality aspects as proposed
by Cooper (1988) and Vom Brocke et al. (2009). For example, a publication must be methodologically
consistant, and argue comprehensibly. The final literature corpus consisted of 288 papers, which we
considered for detailed analysis. Finally, the thematic focus of the paper should be the Digital Twin instead
of merely mentioning it incidentally. After the application of all exclusion criteria, we identified 194 papers
as relevant. As proposed by Webster and Watson (2002), we conducted a backward-search, which resulted
in 39 additional papers. In total, 233 papers were examined (see Figure 1). Finally, as step five, we developed
an agenda for further research (see Conclusion, Limitations, and Outlook).

Figure 1. Systematic literature review process

Americas Conference on Information Systems 3

 A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

Development of Multi-Dimensional Taxonomies

After the literature search, we created the taxonomy following the widely used methodology for developing
taxonomies from Nickerson et al. (2013). The method consists of seven steps (see Figure 2). First, one has
to determine a meta-characteristic, which defines the taxonomy’s purpose. Secondly, one has to set ending
conditions, and an approach must be selected. As a choice, there is the conceptual-to-empirical approach
or the empirical-to-conceptual approach. Each approach is divided into three steps. The conceptual-to-
empirical approach focuses on the conceptualization of characteristics and dimensions before examining
the objects, and a taxonomy is created afterward, while the empirical-to-conceptual approach focuses on
extracting characteristics and dimensions from the objects before grouping them into a taxonomy.
4c. Conceptualize
5c. Examine objects
(new) characteristics 6c. Create (revise)
for characteristics
and dimensions of taxonomy
and dimensions
objects

Conceptual-to-Empirical
Yes
1. Determine 2. Determine
Start meta- ending 3. Approach? 7. EC met? End
characteristic conditions (EC)
Empirical-to-Conceptual

6e. Group
5e. Identify common characteristics into No
4e. Identify (new)
characteristics and dimensions to create
subset of objects
group objects (revise) taxonomy

Figure 2. Taxonomy development method as introduced by Nickerson et al. (2013)

These two approaches have to be run through repetitively until the ending conditions are met. Nickerson et
al. (2013) defined 13 ending conditions, which are divided into eight objective (e.g. no new dimensions or
characteristics added, all objects are classified, or to every characteristic, there is at least one object assigned
to) and five subjective (concise, robust, comprehensive, extendible, and explanatory) conditions. We
describe the development of our taxonomy and the meta-characteristic and the dimensions with their
characteristics in the next section.

A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

The development of the taxonomy required three iterations until we met all 13 ending conditions and, thus,
its final state. In all iterations, we followed the empirical-to-conceptual way, which meant that we discussed,
added, and deleted certain dimensions and characteristics in each iteration. The first iteration consists of
the analysis of 122 papers, in which we met three ending conditions. We found ten dimensions with multiple
characteristics. As some dimensions were not meaningful, we decided to eliminate them. After the second
iteration, in which we examined 72 papers, we met six ending conditions and discussed eleven dimensions.
However, we deleted three non-meaningful dimensions. For example, we removed the dimension data
acquisition, as this dimension consistent of only one characteristic (automated acquisition). The third
iteration included 39 papers, and finally, we met all ending conditions. The dimensions and characteristics
did not change durign this iteration. We classified all objects we found during the literature research and
received a concise, robust, comprehensive, extendible, and explanatory taxonomy, which consists of no
repetitive dimensions or characteristics. Ultimately, we found eight dimensions with 18 characteristics,
which we describe below.
Meta-Characteristic
The meta-characteristics defines the taxonomy’s purpose (Nickerson et al. 2013). In this paper, the purpose
is to identify the central features and properties of Digital Twins (see RO1). The meta-characteristic did not
change during the iterations. Every Dimension must have a link to the meta-characteristic. Therefore, a
dimension must describe a feature or property of a Digital Twin. The meta-characteristic for the present
taxonomy is as follows: “Central, distinguishing features and properties of Digital Twins.”

Americas Conference on Information Systems 4

 A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

Dimensions and Characteristics

Table 2 shows the final taxonomy consisting of eight dimensions and their corresponding characteristics.
During the development iterations, we agreed on three non-mutually exclusive dimensions and five
mutually exclusive dimensions, as indicated in Table 2. Next, we will discuss each dimension (Dn) and
the corresponding characteristics (Cnm).
The dimension data link (D1) specifies how the communication between the Digital Twin and its physical
counterpart takes place, which can either be one-directional (C11) or bi-directional (C12). One-
directional describes a linkage where data flow originates either from the physical part to the digital one or
vice versa. The direction never changes during the lifetime of a Digital Twin. Bakliwal et al. (2018) describe
a one-directional Digital Twin, where the data are extracted from the physical part and transferred towards
the digital one. If data flow happens simultaneously between digital and physical representation as well as
vice versa, it is a bi-directional data link. For example, a bi-directional data link is seen as a mandatory part
of a Digital Twin by Tao and Zhang (2017). A Digital Twin can only obtain a one- or a bi-directional data
link, which makes the dimension mutually exclusive.
The Digital Twin’s way of handling data determines its overall purpose (D2). We distinguish between
three possible characteristics. First, the purpose of the Digital Twin can be processing data (C21). These
processes can be, for example, monitoring, analysis, forecasting, or optimization (Zheng et al. 2018).
Second, the Digital Twin transfers (C22) data from one point (e.g., the physical part) to another one (e.g.,
a data warehouse) as described by Horváth and Erdős (2017) and third, the Digital Twin’s purpose can be
to be a data repository (C23). A Digital Twin may have one, two or all three characteristics at the same
time. Consequently, this dimension is not mutually exclusive.
The dimension conceptual elements (D3) describes the relationship between the Digital Twin and its
physical counterpart. Whereas some authors describe a deep connection between the virtual and physical
part (Minos-Stensrud et al. 2018) and some are stressing the point that the physical system is even an
integral part of the whole Digital Twin (Karadeniz et al. 2019), others see only a loose connection between
a digital representation and its physical twin (Halenar et al. 2019). In this taxonomy, we define two
characteristics for this dimension. Either a Digital Twin is directly bound (C32) to its physical part in a
one to one ratio, or it is independent (C31). If it is independent, a Digital Twin can be seen in combination
with other physical systems or one system can possess multiple Digital Twins. This dimension is mutually
exclusive.
Model accuracy (D4) concerns how the accuracy of the digital representation of the physical object is
expressed. Possible characteristics are identical accuracy (C41) or partial accuracy (C42). The former
describes every detail of a physical object in its digital images, such as exemplified by Alam and El Saddik
(2017). It is not distinguished whether a particular detail will be relevant for the task the Digital Twin has
to perform or not. Contrary to this, partial model accuracy is applied when a digital image only reflects
crucial parts of the physical object. The model accuracy is mutually exclusive as well.
The dimension interface (D5) concerns the capability of a Digital Twin to transfer data after it processes
them. After some changes to this dimension, we concluded that a Digital Twin could possess a machine-
to-machine interface (C51) or a human-machine interface (C52). Tao et al. (2019) describe human-
machine interfaces via augmented reality, whereas Boschert and Rosen (2016) portray their Digital Twin
with a machine-to-machine interface to other models. Petrova-Antonova and Ilieva (2019) show a Digital
Twin, which contains both, a human-machine interface as well as a machine-to-machine interface.
Therefore, this dimension is not mutually exclusive.
The dimension synchronization (D6) consists of two characteristics. Firstly, if a Digital Twin obtains
data updates during its life-cycle (e.g., Negri et al. 2019), there is a synchronization between the Digital
Twin and the physical part (C61). Aivaliotis et al. (2019) even describe the possibility of real-time updates.
Contrarily, there might be no synchronization at all (C62). This is recognized as without. The
synchronization is mutually exclusive.
The dimension data input (D7) differentiates between raw (C71) and processed data (C72). Digital
Twins receive their data from sensors or databases. Those data might be pure, raw data gathered directly
from sensors or other data collection devices. In addition, data, which are preprocessed (e.g., by analytic
software) before it is transferred to the Digital Twins, might be used. Boschert and Rosen (2016) describe

Americas Conference on Information Systems 5

 A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

how a Digital Twin is fed with raw data from the system and with processed data from simulation models
at the same time, which shows that the data input is not mutually exclusive.
The time of creation (D8) distinguishes between three characteristics determining the chronological
order in which the respective parts of the Digital Twin come into existence. Thus, the dimension
distinguishes whether the physical part (C81) or the digital part (C82) is developed first. Further, both
parts may be developed simultaneously (C83). Haag and Anderl (2019) describe the development of a
Digital Twin parallel to the implementation of its physical counterpart. On the other hand, Boschert and
Rosen (2016) stress the fact that a Digital Twin should be developed prior to its physical counterpart.
However, as can be seen in the next section, most Digital Twins are designed after a physical system (see
Table 2).

Table 2. Final taxonomy of Digital Twins with applicated definitions given by Glaessgen
and Stargel (2012), Grieves (2014 and 2017) and Tao et al. (2018)

Application and Discussion

Table 2 shows the final taxonomy. The number in brackets for each characteristic indicates their numerical
distribution alongside the papers. If a Paper does not cover a specific characteristic, e.g., the model
accuracy, it is not included in the cumulated number. After the first and second iteration, we excluded
dimensions, in which the majority of Digital Twins do not describe a characteristic. Table 2 shows that the
majority of the Digital Twins contain a bi-directional data link between the digital and the physical part.
More than 90% of all papers describe a Digital Twin that processes data. Only very few Digital Twins
transfer or store data as their sole purpose. The Digital Twins that do transfer or store data often process
data as well. The Dimension Conceptual Elements contains two characteristics that consist of a very close
number of papers describing a Digital Twin with said characteristic. Although most Digital Twins are
described as physically bound to their counterparts (42%), one-third of the papers describes a Digital Twin
that is independent. In the next dimension, the difference between the characteristics is more significant.
More than half of all papers describe a Digital Twin as an identical copy of its physical counterpart. Just
22% of all papers only refer to them as a partial representation. Although the majority of Digital Twins
should contain a bi-directional data link, only little more than one-third is described with a machine-to-
machine interface. Considerably more papers do mention a human-machine interface. However, the overall
few mentions of machine-to-machine interfaces are due to the fact that many papers do not mention any
interface at all. If a paper mentions interfaces, usually, they describe both types.
Only twenty papers portray a Digital Twin without any synchronization with the physical part. The vast
majority of described Digital Twins contain some form of synchronization, which shows how critical
constant updates are for the operation of a Digital Twin. Many papers do not specify their data input. Thus,
only a small subsample could be analyzed. Nearly 62% of all described Digital Twins use raw data as their

Americas Conference on Information Systems 6

 A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

input, while little less than the half use preprocessed data. Most papers that describe the use of raw data
also mention the usage of processed data. Consequently, we can establish that a Digital Twin should use
both raw and processed data as input. As stated before, while the advice is given that a Digital Twin should
precede its physical part, more than half of all described Digital Twins are designed after a physical system
exists. There are even more Digital Twins designed simultaneously than are designed before a physical
system. In addition to the dimensions above, we identified some more critical dimensions, which contain
no distinction in their characteristics and are therefore not part of the taxonomy. As introduced by
Uhlemann et al. (2017), data acquisition is a vital part of a Digital Twin. Often it is conducted by sensors
which are monitoring the entire system (Kritzler et al. 2017). At first, we distinguished between an
automated and a manual data acquisition but during the analysis, it became apparent that nearly all Digital
Twins contain an automated data acquisition. In a similar way, the dimension data source was dropped
because the vast majority of Digital Twins receive their data from multiple sources. In this context, we must
stress that the input data are very important for a Digital Twin. Therefore, data governance rules as well as
data management processes, as proposed by Otto and Jarke (2019) for data platforms, should be in place
to secure the quality of a Digital Twin.
While some dimensions are very ambiguous, other ones contain more balanced characteristics. However,
based on the analysis, a particular, central type of a Digital Twin can be identified (highlighted in green),
whose characteristics, in sum, are named most frequently. As evaluation of our taxonomy, we checked three
definitions of Digital Twins given by Glaessgen and Stargel (2012), Grieves (2014), Grieves and Vickers
(2017), respectively and Tao et al. (2018), which are widely used (see Table 1). Glaessgen and Stargel (2012)
define a Digital Twin as a one-directional simulation, which processes raw and preprocessed data. Every
Digital Twin owns its corresponding physical twin and is therefore physically bound. In addition, the digital
part is an identical replica of the physical part and communicates with the user via a human-machine
interface. There is a constant synchronization between the digital and physical part and they intend to use
a Digital Twin before and to support the development of the physical part. Grieves (2014) and Grieves and
Vickers (2017) define a Digital Twin as a bi-directional, data processing concept that is linked to a particular
physical product and describes that physical product completely. Via human-machine interfaces, the Digital
Twin notifies its users about discrepancies between the physical and digital part, while it uses machine-to-
machine interfaces for data transfer. The digital part contains up-to-date information due to
synchronization of raw data, which are enriched by preprocessed data. The Digital Part should support the
introduction of a physical product and therefore has to be developed before the physical part. A usage of
the Digital Twin during the whole lifecycle of the physical part is recommended. Tao et al. (2018) describes
a Digital Twin with a bi-directional data link as well as a data processing entity that simulates, forecasts and
regulates a system in real time but also transfers and stores data. They state that the physical and digital
space are connected and therefore bound to each other. As they speak of a real reflection with ultrahigh
fidelity as well as of ultrahigh synchronization, their Digital Twin consists of an identical model that also
contains a synchronization between the physical and digital part. Tao et al. (2018) sees a Digital Twin as
capable of transferring processed (e.g. simulated or forecasted) data to the physical part. Therefore, a
machine-to-machine interface is necessary. At the meantime, the Digital Twin addresses the designer of a
product and therefore needs a human-machine interface for communication with said designer. Their
Digital Twin contains a machine-to-machine interface as well as a human-machine interface. As data input
they use both raw and preprocessed data. They even recommend the usage of historical data to improve the
Digital Twin. As the best time of creation, they see potential that the digital part should come first before
the physical one is build. However, they state that most applications use a digital model only after its
physical counterpart is established. As many definitions like those from Glaessgen and Stargel (2012) or
Tao et al. (2018) request the usage of historical data, the handling of those historical data sets has to be
considered. Hence, aligning data usage policies and data sovereignty rules have to be in place to ensure a
beneficial data usage (Otto et al. 2019).
The three Digital Twins defined above (see Table 1) mostly align with the most mentioned characteristics
from the literature review. However, these definitions do not match each other completely and show
distinctions to the most mentioned characteristics. Nevertheless, a specific type of a Digital Twin with
frequently used characteristics becomes visible. All three definitions can be sorted into the taxonomy, and
no additional characteristics or dimensions can be identified. Therefore, the application of these three
definitions stresses the quality of our taxonomy and validates its benefit.

Americas Conference on Information Systems 7

 A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

Conclusion, Limitations, and Contributions

In this paper, we conducted a rigorous, structured literature review and analysis in which we examined 233
papers about Digital Twin in detail. From this examination, we derived a multidimensional taxonomy of
Digital Twins to achieve our research objectives. We identified the central dimensions and characteristics
(RO1) as following. A typical Digital Twin consists of a bi-directional data link. It processes data and is
physically bound to its real-world counterpart. The Digital Twin is an identical model of a physical system
and contains a human-machine interface. At the same time, we determine a machine-to-machine interface
just as important. The Digital Twin receives constant updates and processes raw, as well as preprocessed
data. The Digital Twin is often designed after its physical counterpart exists, although the design of the
Digital Twin before the physical system exists is recommended. It acquires its data automatically and from
multiple data sources. The application of this set of characteristics guides to the second Research Objective
(RO2) and sets the foundation for the classifications of the definitions given by Glaessgen and Stargel
(2012), Grieves (2014 & 2017) and Tao et al. (2018). It is apparent that the individual definitions largely
correspond to the most used characteristics. However, this research is subject to certain limitations. While
we tried to conduct our research as objective as possible, subjective influences cannot be ruled out.
Especially while identifying the meta-characteristic as well as while constructing the used dimensions,
subjective influences come into effect. Our research was limited to the databases ACM Digital, AIS eLibrary,
IEEE Xplore, JSTOR, and Science Direct. Nevertheless, our taxonomy lays a profound base for a better
understanding of Digital Twins.
Our work provides various scientific contributions. First, we see the opportunity that researchers can
extend the conceptual and definitional understanding of Digital Twins based on our taxonomy. Second, in
line with other studies developing taxonomies, there is merit in deriving archetypical patterns of Digital
Twins. These patterns may then help to provide a more in-depth insight into Digital Twins and to lay the
foundation to unify the different views on Digital Twins (as described in the Introduction). The taxonomy
can be used as a starting point for further research because it provides additional aspects in the context of
IS research. As already demonstrated within RO2, the taxonomy created here is suitable for classifying
existing definitions. As additional further research, it offers the possibility to derive design principles that
are relevant for the implementation of Digital Twins in practice. Therefore, the managerial
contributions are the possibility to develop a process model to standardize the implementation process
of a Digital Twin. Practitioners can compare existing Digital Twins or those on development with our
taxonomy and equip their Digital Twins with all necessary characteristics. Thereby, they will be able to gain
insights and a more profound knowledge of the research field of Digital Twins. Finally, the developed
taxonomy offers the possibility to classify existing standards such as the asset administration shell of the
Plattform Industrie 4.0, which describes a standardized Digital Twin within Industry 4.0.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Excellence Center for Logistics and IT funded by the Fraunhofer-
Gesellschaft and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the German State of North Rhine-Westphalia.

References
Aivaliotis, P., Georgoulias, K., and Alexopoulos, K. 2019. “Using Digital Twin for Maintenance
Applications in Manufacturing: State of the Art and Gap Analysis,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Piscataway,
USA: IEEE, pp. 1-5.
Alam, K. M., and El Saddik, A. 2017. “C2PS: A Digital Twin Architecture Reference Model for the Cloud-
Based Cyber-Physical Systems,” IEEE Access (5), pp. 2050-2062 (doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2657006).
Bailey, K. D. 1994. Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques, Thousand
Oaks, USA, London, UK, New Dehli, India: SAGE Publications.
Bakliwal, K., Dhada, M. H., Palau, A. S., Parlikad, A. K., and Lad, B. K. 2018. “A Multi Agent System
Architecture to Implement Collaborative Learning for Social Industrial Assets,” IFAC-PapersOnLine
(51:11), pp. 1237-1242 (doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.421).

Americas Conference on Information Systems 8

 A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

Boschert, S., and Rosen, R. 2016. “Digital Twin—The Simulation Aspect,” in Mechatronic Futures, P.
Hehenberger and D. Bradley (eds.), Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 59-74.
Chhetri, S. R., Faezi, S., Canedo, A., and Faruque, M. A. A. 2019. “QUILT,” in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Internet of Things Design and Implementation - IoTDI '19, O.
Landsiedel and K. Nahrstedt (eds.), Montreal, Canada, New York, USA: ACM Press, pp. 237-248.
Cimino, C., Negri, E., and Fumagalli, L. 2019. “Review of Digital Twin Applications in Manufacturing,”
Computers in Industry (113) (doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2019.103130).
Cooper, H. M. 1988. “Organizing Knowledge Syntheses: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews,” Knowledge
in Society (1:1), p. 104 (doi: 10.1007/BF03177550).
Eisenträger, M., Adler, S., Kennel, M., and Möser, S. 2018. “Changeability in Engineering,” in 2018 IEEE
International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Stuttgart,
Germany: IEEE, pp. 1-8.
Enders, M. R., and Hoßbach, N. 2019. “Dimensions of Digital Twin Applications - A Literature Review,” in
Proceedings of the 25th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancun: Mexico, pp. 1-10.
Glaessgen, E., and Stargel, D. 2012. “The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force
Vehicles,” in Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials and Co-located Conferences: 53rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Reston,
USA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Glass, R. L., and Vessey, I. 1995. “Contemporary Application-Domain Taxonomies,” IEEE Software
(12:4), pp. 63-76 (doi: 10.1109/52.391837).
Grieves, M. 2014. “Digital Twin: Manufacturing Excellence Through Virtual Factory Replication,”
Grieves, M., and Vickers, J. 2017. “Digital Twin: Mitigating Unpredictable, Undesirable Emergent
Behavior in Complex Systems,” in Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems: New
Findings and Approaches, F.-J. Kahlen, S. Flumerfelt and A. Alves (eds.), Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing, pp. 85-113.
Haag, S., and Anderl, R. 2019. “Automated Generation of As-Manufactured Geometric Representations
for Digital Twins Using STEP,” Procedia CIRP (84), pp. 1082-1087 (doi:
10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.305).
Halenar, I., Juhas, M., Juhasova, B., and Borkin, D. 2019. “Virtualization of Production Using Digital
Twin Technology,” in 2019 20th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC), Krakow-
Wieliczka, Poland: IEEE, pp. 1-5.
Haße, H., Bin, L., Weißenberg, N., Cirullies, J., and Otto, B. 2019. “Digital Twin for Real-Time Data
Processing in Logistics,” in Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics
(HICL)/ Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation in Supply Chain Management:
Innovative Approaches for Supply Chains, W. Kersten, T. Blecker and C. M. Ringle (eds.), Berlin,
Germany: epubli.
Horváth, G., and Erdős, G. 2017. “Gesture Control of Cyber Physical Systems,” Procedia CIRP (63), pp.
184-188 (doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.312).
Josifovska, K., Yigitbas, E., and Engels, G. 2019. “Reference Framework for Digital Twins within Cyber-
Physical Systems,” in 2019 IEEE/ACM 5th International Workshop on Software Engineering for
Smart Cyber-Physical Systems (SEsCPS), Montreal, Canada: IEEE, pp. 25-31.
Karadeniz, A. M., Arif, I., Kanak, A., and Ergun, S. 2019. “Digital Twin of eGastronomic Things: A Case
Study for Ice Cream Machines,” in 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems
(ISCAS): Proceedings: ISCAS 2019 : Sapporo, Japan, May 26-29 2019, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 1-
4.
Korth, B., Schwede, C., and Zajac, M. 2018. “Simulation-Ready Digital Twin for Realtime Management of
Logistics Systems,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Seattle, USA,
IEEE, pp. 4194-4201.
Kritzler, M., Funk, M., Michahelles, F., and Rohde, W. 2017. “The Virtual Twin: Controlling Smart
Factories Using a Spatially-Correct Augmented Reality Representation,” in Proceedings of the
Seventh International Conference on the Internet of Things - IoT '17, New York, USA: ACM Press, pp.
1-2.
Minos-Stensrud, M., Haakstad, O. H., Sakseid, O., Westby, B., and Alcocer, A. 2018. “Towards Automated
3D Reconstruction in SME Factories and Digital Twin Model Generation,” in ICCAS 2018: 18th
International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 1777-1781.
Negri, E., Fumagalli, L., Cimino, C., and Macchi, M. 2019. “FMU-Supported Simulation for CPS Digital
Twin,” Procedia Manufacturing (28), pp. 201-206 (doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.12.033).

Americas Conference on Information Systems 9

 A Taxonomy of Digital Twins

Negri, E., Fumagalli, L., and Macchi, M. 2017. “A Review of the Roles of Digital Twin in CPS-Based
Production Systems,” Procedia Manufacturing (11), pp. 939-948 (doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.198).
Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U., and Muntermann, J. 2013. “A Method for Taxonomy Development and its
Application in Information Systems,” European Journal of Information Systems (22:3), pp. 336-359
(doi: 10.1057/ejis.2012.26).
Otto, B., Hompel, M. ten, and Wrobel, S. 2019. “Reference Architecture for the Digitization of Industries,”
in Digital Transformation, R. Neugebauer (ed.), Berlin, Germany: Springer Vieweg, pp. 109-128.
Otto, B., and Jarke, M. 2019. “Designing a Multi-Sided Data Platform: Findings From the International
Data Spaces Case,” Electronic Markets (43:1), p. 39 (doi: 10.1007/s12525-019-00362-x).
Petrova-Antonova, D., and Ilieva, S. 2019. “Methodological Framework for Digital Transition and
Performance Assessment of Smart Cities,” in 2019 4th International Conference on Smart and
Sustainable Technologies (SpliTech), Split, Croatia: FESB, University of Split, pp. 1-6.
Rosen, R., Wichert, G. von, Lo, G., and Bettenhausen, K. D. 2015. “About The Importance of Autonomy
and Digital Twins for the Future of Manufacturing,” IFAC-PapersOnLine (48:3), pp. 567-572 (doi:
10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.141).
Schleich, B., Anwer, N., Mathieu, L., and Wartzack, S. 2017. “Shaping the digital twin for design and
production engineering,” CIRP Annals (66:1), pp. 141-144 (doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2017.04.040).
Tao, F., Cheng, J., Qi, Q., Zhang, M., Zhang, H., and Sui, F. 2018. “Digital Twin-Driven Product Design,
Manufacturing and Service with Big Data,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology (94:9-12), pp. 3563-3576 (doi: 10.1007/s00170-017-0233-1).
Tao, F., Sui, F., Liu, A., Qi, Q., Zhang, M., Song, B., Guo, Z., Lu, S. C.-Y., and Nee, A. Y. C. 2019. “Digital
Twin-Driven Product Design Framework,” International Journal of Production Research (57:12), pp.
3935-3953 (doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1443229).
Tao, F., and Zhang, M. 2017. “Digital Twin Shop-Floor: A New Shop-Floor Paradigm Towards Smart
Manufacturing,” IEEE Access (5), pp. 20418-20427 (doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2756069).
Uhlemann, T. H.-J., Schock, C., Lehmann, C., Freiberger, S., and Steinhilper, R. 2017. “The Digital Twin:
Demonstrating the Potential of Real Time Data Acquisition in Production Systems,” Procedia
Manufacturing (9), pp. 113-120 (doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.043).
Vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Reimer, K., Plattfaut, R., and Cleven, A. 2009. “Reconstructing
the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search Process,” in
Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy: AIS.
Wagner, C., Grothoff, J., Epple, U., Drath, R., Malakuti, S., Gruner, S., Hoffmeister, M., and Zimermann,
P. 2017. “The Role of the Industry 4.0 Asset Administration Shell and the Digital Twin During the Life
Cycle of a Plant,” in 2017 22nd IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and
Factory Automation, Piscataway, USA: IEEE, pp. 1-8.
Wagner, R., Schleich, B., Haefner, B., Kuhnle, A., Wartzack, S., and Lanza, G. 2019. “Challenges and
Potentials of Digital Twins and Industry 4.0 in Product Design and Production for High Performance
Products,” Procedia CIRP (84), pp. 88-93 (doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.219).
Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. 2002. “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature
Review,” MIS Quarterly (26:2), pp. xiii-xxiii.
Xiang, F., Zhi, Z., and Jiang, G. 2018. “Digital Twins Technolgy and its Data Fusion in Iron and Steel
Product Life Cycle,” in 2018 IEEE 15th International Conference on Networking, Sensing and
Control (ICNSC), Zhuhai, China: IEEE, pp. 1-5.
Zhang, C., Xu, W., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Zhou, Z., and Pham, D. T. 2019. “A Reconfigurable Modeling Approach
for Digital Twin-Based Manufacturing System,” Procedia CIRP (83), pp. 118-125 (doi:
10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.141).
Zhang, H., Liu, Q., Chen, X., Zhang, D., and Leng, J. 2017. “A Digital Twin-Based Approach for Designing
and Multi-Objective Optimization of Hollow Glass Production Line,” IEEE Access (5), pp. 26901-
26911 (doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2766453).
Zhao, G., Cao, X., Xiao, W., Zhu, Y., and Cheng, K. 2019. “Digital Twin for NC Machining Using Complete
Process Information Expressed by STEP-NC Standard,” in Proceedings of the 2019 4th International
Conference on Automation, Control and Robotics Engineering - CACRE2019, New York, USA: ACM
Press, pp. 1-6.
Zheng, P., Lin, T.-J., Chen, C.-H., and Xu, X. 2018. “A Systematic Design Approach for Service Innovation
of Smart Product-Service Systems,” Journal of Cleaner Production (201), pp. 657-667 (doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.101).

Americas Conference on Information Systems 10

View publication stats