Maturity Assessment: A Case Study toward
Sustainable Smart Manufacturing Implementation
Xiaonan SHI, Takenori BABA, Daisuke OSAGAWA, Mitsushiro FUJISHIMA, Teruaki ITO
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION
Abstract—Due to the rapid evolution of Internet of Things
(IoT), the advantage of having smart manufacturing has been
quickly recognized by the industry. Manufacturing companies
are facing challenges of organizing an unprecedented technical
integration of systems and factories across hierarchy, domain
boundaries and life cycle phases.
Many reference models and use-case are available in national
and international smart manufacturing related studies. However,
gaps between study and actual factory environment exist due
to the less care of interconnecting of process steps toward smart
manufacturing implementation. To make over the transformation
of implementation effectively, methodology to identify the gaps
and address appropriate solutions in practice is needed.
This paper provides insights that help the manufacturing
companies toward developing a practical process to achieve
the ultimate goal of interconnecting every step of their smart
manufacturing. Case-study that lower the entry barrier, and
reduce the investment risk of the transformation process for the
factory automation system is highlighted and validated.
Index Terms—Smart Manufacturing, Maturity, Kaizen Level,
Process Improvement, Assessment
I. I NTRODUCTION
For some time now, drivers such as Internet of Things (IoT),
optimization and the need to meet customer personalized
demands have once again powered the transformation of the
manufacturing systems, to become adaptive, entire connected
and cognizant of its capability. This transformation is char-
acterized by the smart manufacturing that is rapidly gaining
ground in attractive in industry.
Various regional concepts of initiatives are widely discussed
the reference architecture of smart manufacturing, such as [1]
[2] [3] [4], underlying enabling technologies and preconditions
and impact on different facets. Many manufacturing compa-
nies are capitalizing their essential functions toward smart
manufacturing within their interconnected manufacturing, as
well as with their partners along the value chain in smart
manufacturing.
It is very important to have a clear and applicable roadmap
for every individual manufacturing company not only to main-
tain but also to increase their competitive edge in smart man-
ufacturing, that can covering multiple views and abstraction
levels of their manufacturing systems’ implementation to aid
the firm in making improvements. There is a need to measure
how well the current system has employed or its capability,
and predict the capability and the process that can be deployed
from a different perspective of views. Satisfying the need
with a holistic methodology that useful to analyse, integrate
and improve every individual situation is the principle of the
implementation toward smart manufacturing.
This paper leads with a case study on how to enable smart
manufacturing in the actual system implementation environ-
ment, from which maturity assessment is validated. Section
II introduces a brief background on smart manufacturing
practical issue for system implementation and abstract the
barrier points in the process. Section III examines the process
of enabling system implementation and highlight the maturity
assessment to make over the barriers. Section IV describes an
explanation of use case regard manufacturing operation site
sustainable improvement on the factory automation system
implementation Section V concludes with guiding principles
for addressing the contribution of maturity assessment on the
system implementation that integrate multiple perspectives for
every individual situation in factory automation. Future work
of systematically defining maturity assessment model in terms
of management processes, operations, functions of system
implementation is specified in the end.
II. P RACTICE ISSUE TOWARD SMART MANUFACTURING
Depending on functions, organizational management objec-
tives and industry sectors, the complexity and pace of smart
manufacturing leads to different points of implementation
efforts across manufacturing companies. This situation creates
lacks of standard terminology and improvement opportunities.
Very few leading-edge manufacturing companies did further
changes, such as a fundamental structural and process reform
to utilize technologies to raise the full potential of smart
manufacturing. For most of the manufacturing companies,
especially for such middle-small size companies who do not
have enough resource, it is still difficult to draw a clear
vision, strategy and systematic roadmap matches their own
manufacturing situation.
In order to cope with such situation, reference models are
developed from various regional initiatives. Overall insights
on system implementation with technical requirements can be
obtained through the use of reference models. Nevertheless,
the reference models have different start points demonstrating
the developer’s favourable industrial sectors, where the con-
sensus of usage is still relatively low. Especially, process of
adopting the concept to actual implementation environment
is not explained in any of the reference models. This lack
of reference models’ definition also creates ambiguity when a
 Fig. 1. Practice issue toward smart manufacturing.
system is analysed. Such miss-matched process cycles exclud-
ing important processes that necessary to one’s manufacturing
company may cause a bias in the system performance, and in
how the system implementation and improvement may further
drive the company off track to the smart manufacturing.
Thus, most of the manufacturing companies who are inter-
ested are facing management challenges of doing sustainable
smart manufacturing system implementation fit for their own
situation with the help of reference models(Fig.1).
III. M ATURITY ASSESSMENT TO ADDRESS SUSTAINABLE
IMPLEMENTATION
In an attempt to overcome the challenges of across im-
plementations toward smart manufacturing, several approach
of using maturity models have been studied. Review on the
relevant maturity level concept definition, such as [5] [6]
[7], many of them are result-driven, ramping up the target
dimensions with maturity level definitions which statistically
identifying the status of performance in the target dimensions.
In this section, we introduce a process-driven maturity
model: Smart Manufacturing Kaizen Level (SMKL) conducted
with the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) [9]. We aim at
helping manufacturing companies to use maturity models as a
essential tool to sustainable improve their system implemen-
tation with a structured evaluation of technologies, physical
architecture, process, weapon system use-case.
Shown in Fig.2, horizontal axis (Table.I) of SMKL is
defined as the maturity level, describing the different levels
of information transparency. Vertical axis (Table.II) of SMKL
is defined as the management level, specifying the range
of system implementation according to IEC62264:2013 [8]
hierarchy enterprise structure.
SMKL aims at providing indications to objectives specified
in management level to help them execute their roles in the
system implementation process. Process flow in consensus is
given in Fig.3. Functions on system implementation can be
conducted by KPI(s). Performance of the system implementa-
tion can be validated through maturity level, Sustainability of
system implementation can be specified from the KPI driven
grow path corresponding to investment.
In terms of such an assessment, continuous improvement in
system implementation across management objectives can be
achieved. As a result, a manufacturing company can draw a
Fig. 2. SMKL to address sustainable implementation.
TABLE I
SMKL HORIZONTAL AXIS : MATURITY LEVEL DEFINITION
Letter Definition Description
a Collecting Manufacturing data and machine status are col-
lected and stored in a electrical way automatically
or manually with simple input action. By doing
so, for example electrical copy of daily handwrit-
ing report can be exempted.
b Visualizing Charts or Tables are automatically generated
based on collected and stored data and target
management objective. By doing so, for example
manually generation of charts and tables can be
exempted.
c Analyzing Charts and Tables describing the comparison of
target performance with current performance with
variance are automatically generated. By doing
so, for example manually analysis difficulties on
variance at worker can be exempted.
d Optimizing Integration and or feedback across management
objectives are adjusted automatically and pro-
actively to over come the visualized variance
between current performance and target perfor-
mance. By doing so, for example the scales of
capability can be maximized.
TABLE II
SMKL VERTICAL AXIS : MANAGEMENT LEVEL DEFINITION
Letter Definition Description
1 Installation Smallest management objective to fulfill specified
or worker function or operation in hierarchical structured
manufacturing process
2 Work Management objective consists of one or more
Station installations and workers satisfying a set of func-
tions or operation in hierarchical structured man-
ufacturing process
3 Factory Management objective consists of one or more
work stations in a given physical location that can
accomplish a hierarchical manufacturing process
4 Supply Whole manufacturing process includes several
chain physically separated or related factory objectives
in one enterprise and beyond enterprise
clear vision, strategy and systematic roadmap matches its own
situation efficiently and effectively in its system application,
where greater investment and more manufacturing will take
place.

Fig. 3. SMKL process flow.
IV. C ASE STUDY IN FACTORY PRODUCTIVITY
In this section, we provide a case study to illustrate factory
automation productivity improvement by using SMKL.
We first specify the stakeholders corresponding to the man-
agement level scales in Table.III. Consider the trigger caused
by the two sides of a factory hierarchical structure, we use the
stakeholder located at the top and bottom layer to describe
two different approaches for productivity improvement.
For the top-down approach, shown in Fig.4 productivity
improvement starts from the factory owner located at fac-
tory management level. Factory owner indicates an expected
maturity level to production manager. Production manager
monitors current productivity performance through maturity
level and analyse the most efficient grow path of improvement.
Factory owner makes an affordable investment decision. The
productivity grades up with one or more circulations to the
higher maturity level matching with investment.
For the Bottom-up approach, shown in Fig.5 productivity
improvement starts with the production operator located at
installation and worker management level. Production operator
matches current productivity performance with an appropriate
maturity level and feedback to production manager. Production
TABLE III
S TAKEHOLDERS USED IN FACTORY PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT
Management Stakeholder Description
level
Factory Factory Person owns factory, who makes investment
owner decision
Work Production Person(s) responsible for production, who
station Manager manage plan, execution, monitor and con-
trol the whole production activities includes
maintenance
Work Service Person or organization provides service with
station provider a purpose of gathering and visualizing pro-
duction information fro installations, pro-
duction operators, as well as SMKL com-
ponent from machine vendors
Installation Production Person(s) engaged in production and main-
and worker operator tenance, who can feedback production im-
provement information according to produc-
tion manager’s instruction
Installation Installation One apparatus or a set of devices and or
and worker apparatuses associated in a given location to
fulfil specified purpose, including all means
for their satisfactory operation [10]
Installation Machine Person or organization provides installations,
and worker vendor component and or sub-assemblies, as well as
SMKL component description correspond-
ing to requirements
manager makes an improvement investment plan, where ma-
turity level jumps up with several grow path options is drawn.
Factory owner evaluates the investment plan and makes the
investment decision. The productivity is then graded up with
one or more circulation to the expected higher maturity level.
As a result shown in Fig.6, a radar chart can be used to
depict the overall result of productivity improvement at-a-
glance to visualizing the implementation status and increasing
the ability of the sustainable improvement to weapon system
application.
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper begins with specifying the practical issue of
smart manufacturing implementation. Then maturity assess-
ment for a sustainable smart manufacturing implementation
process is introduced. An exemplary case study in factory
productivity improvement process toward smart manufacturing
was presented to show how maturity assessment can drive the
implementation in the actual environment.
Future work will focus on the refinement and validation with
the entire smart manufacturing value chain of maturity assess-
ment, and later development of the systematic methodology
for adoption.
R EFERENCES
[1] Industrial Value Chain Initiative(2016), “Industrial Value Chain Refer-
ence Architecture (IVRA),” [Online]. Available: https://iv-i.org.
[2] (2018, Jan)“National Intelligent Manufacturing Standard System
Construction Guideline (Version 2018),” [Online]. Available:
http://www.miit.gov.cn.
[3] IEC PAS 63088:2017, “Smart Manufacturing - Reference architecture
model industry 4.0 (RAMI4.0),” March 2017.
 Fig. 4. Productivity improvement: top-down approach.

Fig. 5. Productivity improvement: bottom-up approach.

[4] Industrial Internet Consortium, “The Industrial Internet of Things, Vol-

ume G1: Reference 696 Architecture,,” IIC:PUB:G1:V1.80:20170131,
2017.
[5] MESA(2016, Apr.), “MOM Capability Maturity Level,” [Online] Avail-
able: https://services.mesa.org.
[6] Acatech STUDY(2017), “Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index – Manag-
ing the Digital Transformation of Companies,” [Online]. Available:
https://www.acatech.de.
[7] China Electronics Standardization Institute White Paper(2016, Sep.),
“Intelligence Manufacturing Maturity Model (Version 1.0),” [Online].
Available: http://www.cesi.ac.cn.
[8] IEC62264:2013, “Enterprise-control system integration - Part 1: Models
and terminology,” May 2013.
[9] ISO 22400-1:2014, “Automation systems and integration — Key perfor-
mance indicators (KPIs) for 719 manufacturing operations management
— Part 1: Overview, concepts and terminology,” october 2014
[10] IEV, “Electropedia: The World’s Online Electrotechnical Vocabulary,”
[Online]. Available: http://www.electropedia.org/.
Fig. 6. Maturity level radar value chart for productivity.