Sustainability 13 09965

sustainability
Article
The 4.0 Industry Technologies and Their Impact in the
Continuous Improvement and the Organizational Results: An
Empirical Approach
Víctor Hugo Arredondo-Méndez 1 , Lorena Para-González 2 , Carlos Mascaraque-Ramírez 3
and Manuel Domínguez 4, *
1 Faculty of Social Sciences, European University Miguel de Cervantes (UEMC), 47012 Valladolid, Spain;
vharredondo22915@alumnos.uemc.es
2 Department of Business Management and Finance, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain;
lorena.para@um.es
3 Naval Architecture Technology Department, Technical University of Cartagena, 30205 Cartagena, Spain;
carlos.mascaraque@upct.es
4 Design Engineering Area, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), 28015 Madrid, Spain
* Correspondence: mdominguez@ind.uned.es
Abstract: This study analyses the relationships between the technologies of Industry 4.0, continuous
improvement, and the business results. To carry out this study, 109 questionnaires to companies
of different sectors were collected, but an indispensable condition to take into account was the
fact that these companies develop themselves their logistics management. The analysis of the

results obtained through the Partial Least Squares (PLS) methodology argues that there is a positive
Citation: Arredondo-Méndez, V.H.;
relationship between 4.0 Industry and continuous improvement processes, as well as between
Para-González, L.; continuous improvement processes and organizational results, although it cannot be concluded that
Mascaraque-Ramírez, C.; Domínguez, a direct relationship between 4.0 Industry and organizational results exists, which means that there
M. The 4.0 Industry Technologies and are other variables, such as continuous improvement, mediating between them. With this work, there
Their Impact in the Continuous is already an accredited reference of the relationship, which has been verified to exist, between the
Improvement and the Organizational Industry 4.0, the continuous improvement, and the business results.
Results: An Empirical Approach.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9965. https:// Keywords: 4.0 Industry; continuous improvement; organizational results; partial least squares
doi.org/10.3390/su13179965
Academic Editor: Roberto Cerchione
1. Introduction
Received: 6 August 2021
Accepted: 1 September 2021 One of the basic supports of Taiichi Ohno’s methodology was continuous improve-
Published: 6 September 2021 ment, as a tool to obtain better business results. The 5S technology developed from these
technologies, advances on this idea, which is later included in Concurrent Engineering
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral and Lean 6S methodologies. The current Industry 4.0, as an evolutionary result in terms
with regard to jurisdictional claims in of production systems, includes these technologies, applying them to new technologies
published maps and institutional affil- such as Enterprise Resource Planning, Artificial Intelligence, Cloud Computing, or Big
iations. Data. In this way, according to the structure of this article, the sixth S of 6S Lean may be
Cybersecurity. In this work, a tour of the 4.0 Industry advanced technologies is made from
the approach not only of sustainability but also of the search for improvement and better
organizational results.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
The aim of the paper is to analyze the relationships between the current technologies
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. of Industry 4.0, continuous improvement, and the business results to verify if the first
This article is an open access article one is influencing the other two. This subject is important because sometimes researchers
distributed under the terms and advance in technological development, focusing on it, forgetting that what really matters
conditions of the Creative Commons is people.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179965 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 9965 2 of 23
2. Literature Review
The fourth Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0 has brought a large number of
technologies with it. Such a situation makes the dynamics of organizations change and it
is necessary to implement some of them for management, because this process can be an
important generator of competitive advantages, which can be achieved through any of the
three generic strategies: low costs, differentiation, or focus [1].
Before describing the most relevant Industry 4.0 technologies, the concept of Industry
4.0 is defined as “a new organization and control model of the value chain through the
product life cycle and throughout the manufacturing systems. Supported and made
possible by information technologies” [2] (p. 3).
2.1. New Technologies of Industry 4.0 in Logistics Management

In this section, the definitions of different authors on the concept of some of the Indus-
try 4.0 technologies that are generating important changes in the logistics management of
companies are cited. Among the technologies analyzed, the following are presented: Re-
source Planning Systems (ERP), Supply Chain Management (SCM), Artificial Intelligence,
Cloud Computing, Cybersecurity, Autonomous Cars, Drones, Big Data, Data Analysis and
Mining of Data, Collaborative Robots, and 3D Simulation.
2.1.1. Resource Planning Systems

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) are solutions based on application software
modules that help to manage the important parts of the business, such as: sales, produc-
tion, materials management, maintenance, and recently it is observed how they include,
within their standard, the latest technologies; Internet, workflow, document management,
among others [3].
Likewise, Quispe-Otocama describe ERP as [4]:
A computerized management administration system that makes it easier and more
precise to evaluate, control, and manage a company. Currently, an ERP is a necessity, even
more so when the volume of information increases more and more, and decisions are made
based on information [4] (p. 7).
Regarding this topic, Riascos-Erazo affirms that ERPs in Industry 4.0 have continued
to evolve [5]. Currently, they are known as EERRP or extended ERP, where processes
such as self-management, electronic commerce, business intelligence, among others, are
integrated into the technology. Moreover, this technology is today combined with Cloud
Computing, that is why some ERPs are called “ERP in the cloud”.
The implantation of this type of systems brings remarkable advantages. According to
Coloma Bedón and Cadena Piedrahita [6], the main advantages of ERPs are:
• Single entry of information to the system.
• Use of forces.
• It allows customization.
• It is based on a reliable structure.
• It provides functionality to interact with other modules.
• It provides the tools for complex queries.
• It provides proven implementation methodologies and theory of change.
2.1.2. Supply Chain Management (SCM)

Named as Supply Chain Management, Silva defines SCM as the “Management of
materials and information flows within and between facilities, such as suppliers, manufac-
turing and assembly plants and distribution centers” [7] (p. 52).
As indicated by Mesa and Carreño [8], SCM is also defined as the network of orga-
nizations involved in upward and downward flows to manufacture products or provide
services that meet customer needs, through an integrated, synchronized, and coordinated
supply chain to achieve continuous improvement in: reduction of inventory needs, cost
savings, and reduced response times.
ability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23
Sustainability 2021, coordinated

13, 9965 supply chain to achieve continuous improvement in: reduction of inventory 3 of 23
needs, cost savings, and reduced response times.
Figure 1 illustrates the flow of information and the relationship between the different
processes that make up the
Figure supply chain
1 illustrates in aofcompany
the flow that,and
information among its processes,
the relationship has the different
between
immersed logistics management.
processes that make up the supply chain in a company that, among its processes, has
immersed logistics management.
Figure 1. Information flow in the supply chain (source: Own elaboration based on Bowersox et al. [9]).
Figure 1. Information flow in the supply chain (source: Own elaboration based on Bowersox et al.
[9]). The origin of SCM is similar to that of ERP systems, since it arises from the need to
manage business information to optimize processes. Within the evolution of this system,
The origintheof movement
SCM is similar to thatManagement
of Quality of ERP systems,and the sinceJustitinarises from theimplemented
time systems need to by Toyota
manage business information
in the 1970s were to very
optimize processes.
popular, Within
according to Ohnothe evolution
[10]. of this system,
the movement of Quality Although Management
SCM technology and the Just in makes
currently time systems implemented
use of other by
AI technologies to become
Toyota in the 1970s were very popular, according to Ohno [10].
more efficient, the fact of synchronizing the different links in the chain is absolutely not an
Although easy
SCMtask.technology
As stated currently
by Schwarz makes use[11],
Díaz of other AI technologies
this complex process to become
requires standardization
more efficient, of
thethefact
different companies that make up the chain, their infrastructure, not
of synchronizing the different links in the chain is absolutely software, policies,
an easy task.protocols
As stated and by
work Schwarz
methods, Díazwith[11],
the this complex
additional process
difficulty thatrequires
each link presents a
standardization of the different companies that make up the chain,
different organizational culture, investment level, and modernization. their infrastructure,
software, policies, protocols
Currently,and work methods,
customers are lookingwithforthetoadditional
establish adifficulty that each
single contract for the complete
link presents a management
different organizational culture, investment level, and modernization.
of the entire supply chain, in order to reduce the supply times of the materials
Currently,andcustomers
maximize arethelooking for to of
availability establish
the fleetatosingle
match contract for the
the service complete
company [12].
management of theAccordingentire supply
to Di chain,
Nardoinet order to the
al. [12], reducefirst the
phase supply
is to times of the
get a list of suppliers that
materials and maximize
must comply the availability of the fleet
with the technical to match theimposed
specifications service company [12].
by the company, then decide
Accordingfor to Di Nardo et
suppliers thatal. meet
[12], the first phase istotosubsequently
specifications get a list of suppliers
carry out that
themust
contract. Finally,
comply with the technical
inventory specifications
management policiesimposed
must be bydefined.
the company,
Contractual thenagreements
decide forare established
suppliers thattomeetspeed up the supply chain, and for this, it is necessary to considerFinally,
specifications to subsequently carry out the contract. the times of issuance
inventory management
of an order, policies must methods
shipping be defined. ofContractual
raw materials agreements
for repair, areand
established
all possible warranty
to speed up themanagement
supply chain,agreements
and for this, it is necessary to consider the times of issuance
[12].
of an order, shipping Themethods
acquisition of ofraw
a SCMmaterials
systemfor repair,
entails and advantages
several all possiblefor warranty
business management,
management agreements [12].
which are presented below, in Table 1, taking into account the advantages contemplated by
Mora García [13].
Table 1. Advantages of the Supply Chain Management System (SCM).
Author and Year Advantage

The management of all channel inventories,
trying to concentrate efforts on reducing those
Lambert and Cooper (2000)
that contribute, to a minor extent, to the total
profit expected by the members of the chain.
Reduction in total costs of the supply chain, as
a consequence of the lower volume of
Cavinato (1991), Shrank y Govindarajan (1992),
inventories, which implies a lower cost of
and New (1997)
storage and capital investment and also higher
labor productivity.
Cavinato (1991), Cooper and Ellram (1993),
A long-term time horizon.
and Christopher (1998)
Reduction of the product cycle timing from the
raw materials of origin to the finished product
Cooper and Ellram (1993), Christopher (1998),
that reaches the consumer, thanks to the
and Mentzer et al. (2001)
efficient management of the supply chain
elements inventories and information.
An improvement in customer service, thanks
to the increase in product flexibility, a
Christopher, Tan, Kannan, and Handfield
reduction in the necessary assets and a lower
cost of supply.
Source: Own elaboration (based on Mora García [13]).
2.1.3. Artificial Intelligence (AI)

According to Basco et al. [14], this term refers to a set of algorithms that allow comput-
ers to process data at an unusual speed (a task that previously required several computers
and people), thus, achieving machine learning. These algorithms have the characteristic of
being nourished by data and recently perfectioned, emulating the machine with cognitive
capacities typical of human beings, such as vision, language, understanding, planning,
and decision.
In turn, Rouhiainen [15] defines AI as “the ability of machines to use algorithms,
learn from data and use what they have learned in decision-making just as a human being
would” [15] (p. 17). Moreover, Waltersmann [16] define AI as an activity dedicated to
manufacturing intelligent machines, with intelligence being the quality that allows this
entity to function properly.
According to Brossi et al. [17], the latest AI revolution began in 2012, driven by the
availability of new computational resources, specifically those related to video cards or
GPUs, which led to the development of a new discipline called “Deep Learning”.
The following are the most outstanding advantages of AI according to Porcelli [18]:
• The importance of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals is highlighted, so
that it can be used to combat extreme poverty and improve the quality of life in
remote areas in many different ways, for example, by improving agricultural land and
agriculture in general.
• It has the potential to create highly effective and personalized education systems that
can be tailored to the needs of students.
• In healthcare, the power of computers is used to analyze and make sense of a large
amount of electronic data about patients such as: ages, medical records, health status,
test results, DNA images sequences, and many others, in order to improve decision-
making that helps improve the quality of life of patients.
• In jobs, it reduces additional costs and salaries, increasing the effectiveness and pro-
ductivity of the company. By automating activities, it enables companies to improve
performance by reducing errors and improving quality and speed.
2.1.4. Cloud Computing

This technology offers storage, access, and use of online computing services. It can be
expressed at three different levels, depending on the service provided: infrastructure as a
service, platform as a service, and software as a service. In addition, it allows companies
to access computing resources in a flexible way with low administrative effort and from
different devices, offering agility, interoperability, and scalability. This technology helps
many of the applications that, until recently, required the installation of a program on a
server hosted in companies, to be now executed remotely [14].
For Qasem et al. [19], Cloud Computing “benefits from the adoption of fast-paced
information technologies, which is more pronounced for research; this aspect is favourable
compared to the traditional software system” [19] (p. 3). This is why this technology is
essential for the education sector, due to the possibility of remote access to online study
material and at a lower cost for the student and the institutions. This technology can be
applied to the world of industrial processes for the control of machine tools and more, in
general of the production line. This combination is called Cloud Manufacturing and is one
of the key Industry 4.0 technologies, because it allows an integrated control and in reality
remote productive complex and distributed [20].
Cloud Computing continues to evolve day by day, according to Osorio Montoya [21];
these technologies are aimed at cognitive computing that involves AI and Blockchain as a
global platform, which allows commercial and personal transactions in block networks
and towards cognitive security to help reduce costs and respond to cyber-attacks.
Table 2 gathers the main advantages of Cloud Computing, according to the study
carried out by Rodríguez [22]:
Table 2. Main advantages of Cloud Computing compared to business aspects.
Appearance Advantage
Financially and economically for companies, it
Financial and economic represents savings in capital costs, cost control,
and marginal benefits.
It allows business continuity and resilience, as well
Disaster management
as the modernization of business processes.
With this technology, no physical space is needed
Computing to be able to store servers and databases, since they
are in the ‘cloud’.
Extended access on the network, that is, it works
through standard mechanisms that promote their
Cloud Access
use by thinning client platforms (mobile phones,
laptops, PDAs, 16 tablets).
Provider computing resources are grouped to
serve multiple consumers, using a
Computing resources multi-distributed model with different physical
and virtual resources dynamically allocated and
reallocated, according to consumer demand.
Source: Own elaboration (based on Rodríguez [22]).
2.1.5. Cybersecurity
Basco et al. [14] define this technology as essential for all other technologies, to
achieve adequate penetration in this phase of digitization. Due to the evolution towards an
intelligent industry and the growing integration of value chain actors, companies are being
to some extent forced to develop cybersecurity mechanisms in industrial environments
that allow detecting, anticipating, and neutralizing threats to the information systems of
companies. This need arises due to the greater connection of people, through different
devices and machines.
Since 2010, the concepts used to refer to security, always in its technological aspect,
are those listed below: Cyber-resilience, Transparent Security, Active Defense, Cyber-
intelligence, Digital Government [23]. In this period, new threats have been detected,
becoming increasingly complex. Among these, Casado Ronbledo [23] identifies as the most
relevant: Hacktivism, Cyberwar, Hybrid Conflict and Disinformation.
The main advantages of this technological tool are defined by Caamaño Fernández
and Herrera Gil [24]:
• Cybersecurity serves to shield organizations against threats and vulnerabilities caused
by existing cyber-attacks in cyberspace.
• It facilitates citizens, as well as public and private companies, to benefit from the use
of cyberspace through ICT, to share information between the different social actors
and behaves as a database for storing information.
• It helps to protect the economic and social stability of companies from their stakehold-
ers, since it allows the continuity of operations with greater security.
• It evaluates the threats and vulnerabilities presented by cyberattacks, in such a
way that it reveals the crimes committed and the collection of evidence for their
respective prosecution.
2.1.6. Autonomous Cars

To understand the concept of autonomous cars, the three concepts that Anitua
Galdón [25] established, must be defined. In the first place, you can find Conditional
Automation, which refers to “the specific benefits of the driving mode, through an auto-
mated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task with the expectation that
the human driver will respond appropriately to a request to intercede” [25] (p. 20). In the
second place, High Automation, which is “The specific performance of the driving mode
by means of an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task, even
if a human driver does not respond adequately to a request for intervention” [25]. Finally,
Full Automation is described as the “full-time performance, through an automated driving
system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task in all road and environmental conditions
that can be managed by a human driver” [25].
Ramírez [26] proposes the following summary definition:
An autonomous vehicle is a car that is capable of imitating human capacities for
handling and controlling, perceiving the environment around it and moving accordingly.
That is, it refers to a car in which the driver only has to enter in the destination address and
not worry about anything else [26] (p. 1).
Currently, there are several companies that have made millionaire investments to
further promote the development of autonomous car prototypes. Among these large
companies can be found: Tesla Motors, Mercedes-Benz, and Uber Technologies Inc., which
seek to generate a transportation service network [27].
There are several advantages related to Autonomous Cars that would be brought to
logistics management and may improve people’s quality of life, such as:
• The decrease in costs related to the transport, storage, and packaging of food that
currently represents 70% [28].
• The reduction of deaths and injuries on roads, due to the replacement of all human
drivers by computers [29].
• The supply transportation to the population that currently does not generally use their
own cars, for example, the elderly or young people who do not have a driving license [27].
• The improvement in traffic flow in cities, due to the fact that all autonomous cars
would be connected in a network, working in a coordinated manner [27].
• Less pollution generated by fuels, because a higher percentage of cars would be electric [27].
2.1.7. Drones
Also known by its acronym in English, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, UAV-drone, is a pro-
pelled, unmanned, and reusable aircraft that operates by remote control and autonomously.
The drone is only a platform that carries some type of sensor whose purpose is to obtain
geospatial data [30].
There are many utilities of this disruptive technology, for example, drones are cur-
rently used to improve agricultural work, to improve internet capabilities, inspection or
maintenance of network towers, and media coverage in high-tech areas [31].
Concerning the advantages of this technology, Guevara-Bonilla [32] highlights the following:
• It provides a high temporal resolution, thanks to the ease of repetition of flights.
• It generates a lower operating cost for small projects.
• It allows the collection of high precision data and good spatial resolution since, when
operating at low altitude, they generate little atmospheric interference, not being
affected by clouds.
• There are no human risks for the crew, when using this type of technology. Besides,
they show great ease of use for non-specialized operators.
• Ojeda Bustamante [33] also adds the following advantage of this technology: Drones
are very useful for those areas that are difficult to access, referring to, for example,
volcanoes, fires, areas with concentration of radioactivity, or other disaster areas, such
as landslides or floods, among others.
2.1.8. Big Data, Data Analysis and Data Mining

It refers to the data characterized by its volume (large amount), speed (at which it is
generated, accessed, processed, and analyzed), and a variety of structured and unstructured
data [14]. These data can be reported by machines and equipment, sensors, cameras,
microphones, mobile phones, production software, and can come from various sources,
such as companies, suppliers, customers, and social networks. The analysis of this data
using advanced algorithms is key to make decisions in real time. Furthermore, it allows
companies to achieve better standards of product and process quality, and facilitates them
access to new markets, a phenomenon known as ‘Data-based Innovation’ [14].
Currently, in the business environment, it is necessary to establish a Big Data strategy.
Joyanes Aguilar [34] affirms that this strategy should be included in the company’s global
strategy, in order to achieve an exponential increase in the knowledge of the business
to generate value and improve companies’ efficiency. In this way, technology is used to
transform data into information and this latest into better products and customer services.
Table 3 brings together the main advantages of this technology for logistics manage-
ment, according to Parada Torralba [35].
Table 3. Main advantages of Big Data, Data Analysis, and Data Mining in logistics management.
Number Advantage
By measuring logistics processes, the efficiency of the processes is
1 improved, since a detailed and objective map of the situation and
their quality is obtained.
Control of the company assets can be improved: vehicle fleet,
stored products, pallets, etc. In this way, distribution operations
2
are optimized, inventory levels are reduced and significant
savings in costs and organization timings are obtained.
A segmentation of the demand occurs. If the company integrates
3 Big Data with its CRM (Customer Management program), the
needs and interests of buyers can be known.
Table 3. Cont.
Number Advantage
It allows processes distribution optimization, allowing companies
4 to be more agile. In addition, it offers the opportunity to discover
new business models and more efficient delivery ways.
It allows exhaustive real-time monitoring of the status and
5 situation of all products in order, to be able to detect possible
incidents, among other things.
It allows to establish business parameters with which demand
6 can be predicted and, in this way, prices adjustments of the
products may be transferred to lower logistics costs.
Using real-time data that can be obtained from the traffic and
weather situation, the best routes to deliver orders to customers
7
can be calculated. This represents a significant saving for
companies and a benefit for customers.
Source: Own elaboration (based on Parada Torralba [35]).
2.1.9. Collaborative Robots

Basco et al. define this technology as a set of intelligent machines that automate tasks
that were previously confined only to the human domain. In the world of industry, the
trend is to advance on the automation of production processes, navigation and control, the
integration of sensors and actuators, and the communication of interfaces [14] (p. 6).
This technology is characterized by its small size, its flexibility, and its affordable
price. Unlike traditional industrial robots, therefore, it is ideal for small and medium-
sized companies. An investment in this technology offers a rapid return on investment,
due to the fact that these robots do not require specialized technicians for assembly and
commissioning, being able to be reconfigured to operate at various points in a production
line and allowing companies to optimize their productivity [36].
One of the main uses of this technology is to support humans in repetitive and stressful
tasks. That is, they avoid work overload, improving working conditions, and the quality of
life of the companies’ staff [37].
The main advantages of this technology are described by I-CTEC [38]:
• They are systems that can be programmed in an easy and simple way.
• Personnel training is done quickly and intuitively, and without the need of prior
programming knowledge.
• It provides a 100% safe environment when working with them in different phases of
the manufacturing process, improving, as a consequence, product quality and prices.
The various tasks can be adjusted to the process gradually, that is, there is no need to
fully automatize production.
2.1.10. 3D Simulation
It refers to a technology that allows virtually adjusting and representing the joint
operation of machines, processes, and people in real time, before being put into operation.
This helps to prevent breakdowns, save time, and evaluate the final result in a controlled
environment. As a matter of fact, it allows reducing the costs associated with learning pro-
cesses (of “trial and error”), through a virtual representation of the design of new products,
or through testing different configurations in the operations of the production plant [14].
This technology was originated, according to Casal Angulo [39], “In 1929 with the
presentation of the first flight simulator called “Link Trainer”, developed by Edwin A. Link
that offered a new and innovative alternative for the training of war pilots. This type of
training emphasizes the repetition of situations and management of events to improve
retention and learning, while promoting active reflection and analysis as a powerful
pedagogical tool” [39] (p. 12).
In this sense, Virtual Reality was introduced for the first time in 1991. In the last
two decades, there has been a development of Virtual Reality simulators and the use of
3D models. At the same time, studies on the usefulness of simulators in development of
clinical competencies began [40].
According to Basco et al. [14], currently, with this technology, it is possible to test (in the
virtual world) different configurations until achieving an “optimal virtual configuration”
that will then be reflected in the physical production line. Furthermore, the experiences
obtained in the real world will serve to improve the virtual environment, generating a
kind of collaboration between the physical plant and its virtual representation (“virtual
plant”) [14] (p. 28).
Table 4 lists the advantages of 3D simulation, according to Cantú-González et al. [41].
Table 4. Main advantages of 3D Simulation.
Number Advantage
Supplementation of physical and conventional experimentation,
1
when it is not feasible for various reasons.
2 It allows to analyze numerous effects by making various alterations.
It allows elements of uncertainty to be included, by admitting
3
questions such as: what would happen if . . . ?
4 Fast reply-times.
It facilitates the training of personnel and the teaching and learning
5
of complex systems and diverse analyses.
6 It allows to experiment with new situations and anticipate results.
Source: Own elaboration (based on Cantú-González et al. [41]).
2.2. The Relationship between the New Technologies of Industry 4.0 and Business Results
Torrent-Sellens [42] affirms that, in each Industrial Revolution that humanity has un-
dergone, there are common productive factors that are consolidated as sources of economic
growth, job skills change, and social structure. These factors are never the technology on
which economic change is based, but what does generate new productive factors are the
interactions between different economic activities, business models, market structures, and
the organization of the economy. These interactions lead to even growth, where each sector
contributes to total development.
“A complete analysis of the effects of Industry 4.0 on business results should identify
and consider its four pillars: technology, manufacturing and networks, work and smart
products” [42] (p. 5). Companies must make their self-assessment on these four pillars,
since they help to measure the impact generated by the technologies used in the Industry
4.0 and the information gathered will serve for decision-making.
The expected benefits of the implementation of Industry 4.0 in companies, according
to Torrent-Sellens [42], should be the following:
(1) For products: customization, quality, and reduction of launch times.
(2) For operations: decrease in operating costs, increase of productivity, and higher
visualization and control.
(3) Collateral or secondary effects: sustainability and worker satisfaction.
In this regards, Torrent-Sellens [42] concludes that organizations, by using the different
technologies of Industry 4.0, generate value through the enhancement of R&D and human
capital, which enhances better results, related to an increase in sales, value added, exports,
gross operating margin, productivity, employment, and wages.
Another study that summarizes the relationship of Industry 4.0 technologies with
business results is the one carried out by Blanco et al. [43]. The application of the above-
mentioned technologies to production processes will make them more efficient, due to the
optimization of energy resources or raw materials, as well as costs reduction. Moreover,
Finally, the sustainability of the economy must be accompanied
environmental sustainability, that is, not only business results are exp
greater protection of natural resources and ecosystems. This is why the u
technologies from Industry 4.0, for example, the use of Big Data, becom
obtain the necessary data that leads to decision-making on the pres
environment. In fact,more
they will make companies according to Ballestero
flexible, due andofGonzález
to the reduction deadlines and Aranda
product[44], “a
acustomization.
society will In not be sustainable
this sense, if their
the incorporation natural
of Industry environment
4.0 technologies is not, and it
onto existing
products will improve their functionalities and allow the appearance of new products. In
to act to achieve sustainability” [44] (p. 137).
addition, Industry 4.0 enables the emergence of new business models, such as car sharing
The
services, hypotheses
thanks raisedoffor
to the incorporation thisinto
sensors article areorfocused
vehicles, the concept on the search for the
implementation
continuous
of collaborativeimprovement
economy. with Industry 4.0 technologies that entail better b
Finally, the sustainability of the economy must be accompanied by social and envi-
Continuous improvement has been related to quality management sy
ronmental sustainability, that is, not only business results are expected, but also greater
tools.
protectionHowever, this is aand
of natural resources philosophy
ecosystems. Thisthatisany
why thecompany of anytechnolo-
use of disruptive size and ind
This philosophy has entry barriers perceived by the different hierarchic
gies from Industry 4.0, for example, the use of Big Data, becomes essential to obtain the
necessary data that leads to decision-making on the preservation of the environment. In
organization. “While top managers primarily attribute the limit
fact, according to Ballestero and González Aranda [44], “an economy and a society will not
shortcomings of improvement
be sustainable if their natural environment methods
is not, andand
it is supporting
still possible to technical
act to achieve systems
sustainability” [44]
Employees point(p. 137).
out “to limited support and commitment from managem
The hypotheses raised for this article are focused on the search for the relationship of
to other organizational
continuous factors,4.0such
improvement with Industry as lack
technologies thatof involvement,
entail better businessmotivation
results.
[45]Continuous
(p. 1122).improvement
These twohasdifferent
been relatedperceptions of the two
to quality management interest
systems and lean groups
tools. However, this is a philosophy that any company of
generate the need to achieve continuous improvement, through a comm any size and industry can apply.
This philosophy has entry barriers perceived by the different hierarchical levels of the
management
organization. “While and topactive
managersleadership [45]. the limited success to shortcomings
primarily attribute
At present,
of improvement the different
methods and supportingtechnologies of Industry
technical systems” 4.0 represent
[45] (p. 1122). Employees better
point out “to limited support and commitment from management, in addition to other or-
for industrialists, because their implementation helps to achieve th
ganizational factors, such as lack of involvement, motivation and teamwork” [45] (p. 1122).
economic, environmental,
These two different perceptions of theandtwo social
interestsustainability
groups of the company[46]. Thus,
generatecontinuou
the
requires a union of efforts to have a qualified staff that allows guidin
need to achieve continuous improvement, through a commitment from the management
and active leadership [45].
towards a competitive future, and in this way, generating innovatio
At present, the different technologies of Industry 4.0 represent better business results
products, production
for industrialists, because their methods, andhelps
implementation productive
to achieve the process [47].
objectives of economic,
environmental, and social sustainability [46]. Thus, continuous improvement requires a
union of efforts to have a qualified staff that allows guiding the company towards a com-
3. Hypothesis
petitive future, and in this way, generating innovations, improving products, production
After
methods, and the analysis
productive carried
process [47]. out in the literature review, the following
presented
3. Hypothesisfor the present research work:
After the analysis carried out in the literature review, the following hypotheses are
Hypothesis
presented 1(H1).
for the present The
research new technologies of Industry 4.0 positively impact
work:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). The new technologies of Industry 4.0 positively impact business results.
Hypothesis 2(H2). The new technologies of Industry 4.0 promote continuo
Hypothesis 2 (H2). The new technologies of Industry 4.0 promote continuous improvement.
Hypothesis 3(H3). Continuous improvement leads to higher business resu
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Continuous improvement leads to higher business results.
The
The proposed
proposed hypothesis
hypothesis model is
model is presented presented
in Figure 2. in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Hypothesis model.

4. Materials and Methods

After having investigated in the Literature review section the concepts that the dif-
ferent authors exposed about the disruptive technologies of Industry 4.0, and having
identified their origin and main advantages, the methodology used to analyze the results
obtained in the research work is detailed below.
Next, the population, sample, the process of collecting the information, and the
statistical analyses for its contrast are described.
4.1. Population under Study

Taking into account that, regardless of seniority, economic sector and size of the
company, defining the size of the company as its number of employees, 109 professionals
from different areas were chosen. The main condition was that their daily work involved
intervention in logistics management, having also knowledge of the different disruptive
technologies that are being implemented in the processes of their companies.
The target population was 250 professionals from 80 companies in Latin America and
Europe. The fundamental condition to be able to fill out the questionnaire was that their
daily work had to intervene in the logistics chain of the company, therefore, they had access
to information, software, financial resources of the area and in general, to knowledge of the
Industry 4.0 technologies implemented in the logistics processes.
A sample of 109 professionals who met the required characteristics, successfully
completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 43.6%.
When distributing the survey, no special economic activity was required, since all
companies are obliged to carry out logistics management, regardless of their corporate
purpose. The professionals contacted, for the most part, belong to companies in the mining,
industrial, commercial, and other sectors not included in the main options. Those who
work in sectors not included said that they work in the technology sector. This information
can be observed in Table 5. Economic sectors in which professionals work. It was also
evidenced that these professionals mostly work in medium-sized companies, followed
by small companies and finally, large companies with more than 250 employees. This
is observed in Table 6. Number of employees of the company in which the surveyed
professional works. Regarding the age of the company in the market, the predominant
frequency was more than 10 years, followed by the range of between five and 10 years and
finally, less than five years. This information is represented in Table 7: Age of the company
in the market.
Table 5. Economic sectors in which the surveyed professionals work.
Economic Valid Accumulated

Frequency Percentage
Sectors Percentage Percentage
Agricultural 1 0.9 0.9 0.9
Mining 20 18.3 18.3 19.3
Industrial 20 18.3 18.3 37.6
Energy 7 6.4 6.4 44.0
Building 3 2.8 2.8 46.8
Transport 6 5.5 5.5 52.3
Communications 6 5.5 5.5 57.8
Table 5. Cont.
Economic Valid Accumulated

Sectors Percentage Percentage
Commercial 10 9.2 9.2 67.0
Tourism 4 3.7 3.7 70.6
Education 7 6.4 6.4 77.1
Financial 6 5.5 5.5 82.6
Solidarity 1 0.9 0.9 83.5
Healthcare 3 2.8 2.8 86.2
Cultural 1 0.9 0.9 87.2
Other 14 12.8 12.8 100
Total 109 100.0 100.0
Source: Own elaboration (2021).
Table 6. Number of employees of the company in which the surveyed professional works.
Range of Valid Accumulated

Employees Percentage Percentage
Less than 50 30 27.5 27.5 27.5
Between 50 and 250 56 51.4 51.4 78.9
More than 250 23 21.1 21.1 100.0
Total 109 100.0 100.0
Table 7. Age of the company in the market.
Valid Accumulated
Age Frequency Percentage
Percentage Percentage
Less than 5 15 13.8 13.8 13.8
Between 5 and 10 37 33.9 33.9 47.7
More than 10 57 52.3 52.3 100.0
Total 109 100.0 100.0
4.2. Collection of Information

4.2.1. Data Collection Process
The data collection process was carried out through a structured form in the Google
Forms tool, the distribution was made through social networks and email. This tool has
important advantages such as: a very simple and intuitive interface, easy administration
and easy completion, easy preview, automatic evaluation function and response summary,
in addition to not involving an economic cost for the research [48].
4.2.2. Description of the Questionnaire

To structure the questionnaire, a review of studies by other researchers was carried
out. For example, in a study carried out by Pacheco Cárdenas [49], the different best-known
technologies of Industry 4.0 were researched. The following questions were taken from a
study carried out by the Catholic University of Colombia for the manufacturing sector of
Bogotá. However, they have been adapted them for this work:
• Which of the Industry 4.0 technologies do you know about? Cloud Computing Big
data, Internet of things (IoT), 3D Printing, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality,
and Cybersecurity.
• Explain what factors you took into account for the implementation of Industry 4.0.
• Have you implemented Industry 4.0 technologies in your organization?
To determine the reason for investing in Industry 4.0 technologies, the ANDI Digital
Transformation Survey 2017 was reviewed. In this, it was possible to identify the proposal
of different reasons, among which were to gain a brand, to gain online presence, to achieve
disruption in its own industry or other industries, to generate new income, to reduce
costs and to automate processes [50]. In a study carried out by Cano Olivos and Orue
Carrasco [51], the logistics models for small and medium-sized companies in Mexico were
studied. In this research, there were scales in rating surveys from 1 to 5, where 1 was
the lowest rating. This led to the structuring of several questions for the questionnaire,
among these:
• Rate from 1 to 5, with 1 being the worst rating and 5 the best rating, the efficiency of
logistics management with the current technologies that your company has.
• Rate from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all important” and 5 “Very important”, the level
of importance that your company gives to Information Technology (IT) as a facilitating
tool in the development of your organization’s strategy.
• On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”, check
whether your company assigns improvement teams to processes.
• On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”, mark if
your company controls the processes through a system of indicators.
• On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”, mark if
your company works on continuous improvement of processes.
• On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”,
indicate whether your company periodically conducts opinion surveys to staff to
evaluate their level of satisfaction in aspects such as: work environment, open atmo-
sphere and communication, participation schemes, training, salary, recognition or
professional perspectives.
• On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”, indicate
if your company makes alliances with other organizations, which help to improve
logistics management, derived from external relations.
whether your company at the time of organizing logistics processes takes into account
the needs, expectations, requirements, and customer satisfaction.
• On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”,
indicate whether your company controls the degree of application of the established
logistics procedures.
whether your company has a method to assess the degree of effectiveness of activities.
Finally, in the study carried out by Bravo Alay and Martillo Fernández [52], the
importance of implementing the enabling technologies of Industry 4.0 was investigated.
In this study, scales of the level of importance were used, defined as very important,
moderately, neutral, little importance, and not immediately important. With this scale, a
question was structured for the surveyed professionals to indicate the level of importance
of different aspects in their companies and, thus, collect information on business results.
The question was, rate with an X each of the following Industry 4.0 technologies, according
to the level of importance for the logistics management of your company where 1 indicates
“not important” and 5 “very important”.
The first part of the survey contains what is related to general information about
the company. In this part, an attempt was made to identify the size of the company, the
age, and the economic activity. In the second part of the survey, a focus was given to the
different knowledge in disruptive technologies of Industry 4.0 that the 109 professionals
surveyed had. There, the possibility of choosing among 10 disruptive technologies was
given to determine the level of knowledge of the participants about each one of them. They
were asked about the implementation of one or more of these in their companies; the main
motivation for having carried out said implementation and the three areas of the company
where the use of some of the disruptive technologies is most evident.
The final part of the survey focused on obtaining information on the contribution
that disruptive technologies have made in logistics management, if these technologies
contribute to the formulation of the organization’s strategy, if resources are defined to
develop different projects, if the company takes into account its employees. In terms
of job satisfaction, if the company considers customer satisfaction to improve processes
and finally if the company measures the results and establishes actions to improve them.
All these data collected allow to obtain an overview of the level of use of the different
disruptive technologies in companies and to be able to conclude on the aspects in which the
different professionals surveyed should focus their efforts on companies to obtain greater
business results.
4.3. Statistical Analysis

With the data obtained in MS Excel, through the Google Forms with information from
109 professionals, from the mining, industrial, energy, construction, transport, communica-
tions, commercial, tourism, education, financial, solidarity, healthcare, cultural, and other
sectors not defined, but mostly from the technology sector, the responses were tabulated
in the IBM SPSS software. These professionals are located in Spain and Latin America.
The Spanish were 28, representing 25.69%, and the Latin Americans were 81 professionals,
representing 74.31%. For this study, 240 surveys were sent, of which 109 were completed,
for a response rate of 45.42%. The IBM SPSS software facilitates the download of collected
information, because it is purely statistical. Subsequently, frequency tables and bar graphs
were made for analysis and discussion that, at the end of the research work, were con-
trasted with the two hypotheses stated. For this, the SmartPLS software that is “a free and
easy-to-use modelling package used for partial least squares analysis” [53] (p. 35) was used.
Finally, this analysis serves as input to compile the main conclusions of the research work.
The sample was defined according to the non-probability sampling technique. By
means of this technique, “the selection of the study subjects will depend on certain charac-
teristics, criteria, etc. that the researcher considers at a time” [54] (p. 228). The subtype of
the technique is by convenience. This technique “allows us to select those accessible cases
that agree to be included. This, based on the convenient accessibility and proximity of the
subjects for the researcher” [54] (p. 230).
5. Results
For this study, 109 surveys of professionals from different areas have been analyzed,
their work in companies directly intervenes in logistics management. As mentioned, the
results of the surveys were coded and managed through the IBM SPSS program. This is
a module program, which allows working through different statistical type menus, and
it is supported in a graphical environment to solve problems and process data [55]. The
tables of all the answers collected to the questions of the questionnaire and their graphic
representation are presented below.
Most of the professionals surveyed belong to companies that have between 50 and
250 employees, which represents 51.4% of the responses obtained, while 27.5% belong
to companies with fewer than 50 employees and 21.1% to companies with more than
250 employees. This tells us that 78.9% of the people surveyed, who add up to 86 people,
work in micro, small, and medium enterprises.
The survey data have shown that 18.3% of the surveyed professionals work in mining
companies and another 18.3% in industrial companies, and 12.8% have chosen among the
options that they work in “Other sectors”. It was possible to identify, among them, the one
related to technology, in the majority. Furthermore, 9.2% work in the commercial sector,
6.4% in the energy sector, as well as in the education sector. For their part, 5.5% work in
the financial sector, the same percentage as in the transport sector. The remaining 17.6%
work in smaller proportions, in different sectors such as: agriculture, construction, tourism,
solidarity, healthcare, and culture.
Moreover, 52.3% of the professionals who work in companies with more than 10 years
of antiquity in the market, while 33.9% of those surveyed in companies between five
and 10 years of antiquity and the remaining 13.8% in companies less than five years old.
This is important, since most of the respondents work in companies with more than five
years of experience, with which their consolidation is greater, and it is likely that they are
implementing or thinking of implementing Industry 4.0 tools in their logistics functions.
The questionnaire contains 13 questions, of which 10 have been structured on a Likert
scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means the worst rating and 5 is the highest rating and a neutral
criterion is rated 3. The other three questions are closed, where the professionals surveyed
choose among some specific options the answer that according to their knowledge is more
adapted to reality.
The questions in the questionnaire are listed below:
1. Answer YES or NO, regarding whether the data that your company collects, due to
its logistics operation, is analyzed with an Artificial Intelligence tool.
2. Regardless of the Industry 4.0 technologies your company has invested in, please
state the main reason you believe the investment was made.
3. While organizations seem to recognize that technological innovation is necessary to
gain competitive advantage, they may not yet have begun implementing disruptive
technologies. Order from 1 to 3, the three areas in which you think the investment is
most evident.
4. Rate from 1 to 5, with 1 being the worst rating and 5 the best rating, the efficiency of
logistics management with the current technologies that your company has.
5. Rate from 1 to 5, being 1 “Not important” and 5 “Very important”, the level of
importance that your company gives to Information Technology (IT) as a facilitating
tool in the development of your organization’s strategy.
6. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Strongly disagree” and 5 “Strongly agree”,
check whether your company assigns improvement teams to processes.
7. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”, mark
if your company controls the processes through a system of indicators.
8. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”, mark
if your company works on continuous improvement of processes.
9. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”, indi-
cate whether your company periodically conducts opinion surveys to staff to assess
their level of satisfaction in aspects such as: work environment, work environment
openness and communication, participation schemes, training, salary, recognition or
professional perspectives.
10. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”, indicate
if your company makes alliances with other organizations that help improve logistics
management, derived from external relations.
whether your company at the time of organizing logistics processes takes into account
the needs, expectations, requirements, and customer satisfaction.
12. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Totally disagree” and 5 “Totally agree”,
indicate whether your company controls the degree of application of the established
logistics procedures.
whether your company has a method to assess the degree of effectiveness of activities.
The answers with their main statistical data are listed in Table 8.
Table 8. Results obtained in the final questionnaire.
Question Average Mode Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum

1 1.69 2 0.465 1 2
2 3.63 5 1.386 1 5
3 3.45 1 2.794 1 10
4 3.92 5 1.064 1 5
5 4.29 5 0.797 1 5
6 4.17 5 0.951 1 5
7 4.23 5 0.939 1 5
8 4.23 5 0.835 1 5
9 3.87 5 1.255 1 5
10 3.94 5 1.096 1 5
11 4.24 5 0.952 1 5
12 4.09 4 0.908 1 5
13 4.04 5 1.036 1 5
Regarding question 1, the results generated were that of the 109 professionals surveyed,
34 of them representing 31.2% affirm that they do use AI tools to analyze data in the
company. The remaining 68.8%, equivalent to 75 professionals surveyed, indicate that
they do not use tools in the company to analyze data, which shows that it is a very low
percentage that takes advantage of the benefits of AI technology for decision-making.
On question 2 of the survey, the 109 professionals from different economic sectors
determined the main reasons why the company has invested or would invest in AI tech-
nology. Of those surveyed, 44, representing 40.4%, affirm that the investment was made or
would be made to automate processes; 18.3%, representing 20 professionals, affirm that it
is to generate higher income; 16.5%, which is equivalent to 18 professionals, affirm that it is
to reduce costs; and 15.6%, which is equivalent to 17 professionals, affirm that they do it or
would do it to achieve disruption in their own industry. Finally, 9.2%, which is equivalent
to 10 professionals surveyed, affirm that their use is for the purpose to improve customers’
knowledge of their brand.
The study carried out on the areas of the companies where disruptive technologies
are most implemented, investigated in question 3, has generated the following results:
of the 109 professionals surveyed, 45 of them, representing 41.3%, affirm that the area
where most disruptive technologies are implemented is in computing; 14 professionals,
representing 12.8%, affirm that it is in the logistics area; 11 professionals, representing
10.1%, affirm that it is in the engineering area; 9 professionals, representing 8.3%, state that
it is in the area of finance and accounting; 8 professionals, representing 7.3%, affirm that it
is in the production area; and that same amount and percentage affirm that it is in the area
of strategic direction. Finally, the remaining 14 professionals, representing 12.95%, affirm
that the implementation is made in the other areas, including marketing and sales, human
talent, quality management, and communications.
Question 4 was established to carry out the investigation of the perception of efficiency
that the implementation of technological tools in logistics management has had. From this,
it has been obtained that, of the 109 professionals surveyed, 38.5%, which is equivalent to
42 professionals, affirm that logistics management is very good with current technological
tools; 27.5%, which is equivalent to 30 professionals, affirm that it is regular; 25.7%, which
is equivalent to 28 professionals, affirm that it is good; and 5.5%, that represent six profes-
sionals, affirm that it is bad. Finally, 2.8%, equivalent to three professionals, say that the
perception is very bad.
Question 5 was formulated to inquire about the importance of implementing ICTs as a
tool to establish the company’s strategy. On this question, of the 109 professionals surveyed,
the responses of 50 of them, representing 45.9%, affirm that they fully agree that their com-
panies give importance to implementing ICTs to develop their strategy; 45 professionals,
representing 41.3%, affirm that it is important to implement ICTs; 11 professionals, repre-
senting 10.1%, affirm that it is moderately important; and two professionals, representing
1.8%, affirm that it is not very important to implement ICTs. Finally, one professional,
who represents 0.9%, affirms that it is not important to implement ICTs to establish the
company’s strategy.
In the inquiry into the opinion of professionals to determine whether or not they agree
with the allocation of resources to improve processes in companies, found in question 6,
it has shown that, of the 109 professionals surveyed, 48 of them, that represents 44%,
affirm that they totally agree that the company allocates resources to improve processes;
41 professionals, representing 37.6%, affirm that they agree; 14 professionals, representing
12.8%, state that they neither agree nor disagree; and six professionals, representing 5.6%,
state that they disagree and totally disagree.
The research on the use of indicators to control processes, associated with question 7,
has shown that, of the 109 professionals surveyed, 53 of them, representing 48.6%, affirm
that they fully agree that the company uses a system of indicators to control processes;
36 professionals, representing 33%, say they agree; 14 professionals, representing 12.8%,
state that they neither agree nor disagree; and four professionals, representing 3.7%, claim
to disagree. Finally, two professionals, representing 1.8%, affirm that they totally disagree.
Question 8 generated results on the implementation of actions for the continuous
improvement of processes in companies. On this question, of the 109 professionals sur-
veyed, the responses of 48 of them, representing 44%, have been that they fully agree
that their companies work on the continuous improvement of processes; 43 professionals,
representing 39.4%, affirm that they agree; 13 professionals, representing 11.9%, state that
they neither agree nor disagree. Finally, five professionals, representing 4.6%, claim to
disagree that the company works on continuous process improvement.
The conduct of opinion surveys in the company to determine the level of employee
satisfaction was investigated in question 9. The results showed that of the 109 professionals
surveyed from different economic sectors, 47 of them, representing 43.1 % affirm that
they fully agree that their companies carry out opinion surveys to evaluate the level of
satisfaction of their employees; 26 professionals, representing 23.9%, affirm that they agree;
18 professionals, representing 16.5%, state that they neither agree nor disagree; 11 profes-
sionals, representing 10.1%, claim to disagree. Finally, seven professionals, representing
6.4%, state that they totally disagree.
The investigation of the establishment of external alliances in the company to improve
logistics management, developed in question 10, has generated the following results: of the
109 professionals surveyed, 41 of them, representing 37.6%, affirm that they are fully agree
that their companies make alliances with other companies, in order to improve logistics
management; 38 professionals, representing 34.9%, affirm that they agree; 17 professionals,
representing 15.6%, state that they neither agree nor disagree; nine professionals, represent-
ing 8.3%, claim to disagree. Finally, four professionals, representing 3.7%, state that they
totally disagree.
Question 11 was structured to investigate the evaluation of customer satisfaction
in the company. This has generated that of the 109 professionals surveyed, 53 of them,
representing 48.6%, affirm that they fully agree that their companies evaluate customer
satisfaction, in order to organize logistics processes; 38 professionals, representing 34.9%,
affirm that they agree; 12 professionals, representing 11%, state that they neither agree
nor disagree; and three professionals, representing 2.8%, claim to disagree. Finally, three
professionals, representing 2.8%, affirm that they totally disagree.
Question 12 was asked to investigate the degree of application of established logistics
procedures. The results generated showed that of the 109 professionals surveyed, 44 of
them, representing 40.4%, affirm that they agree that the degree of application of established
logistics procedures is controlled in their companies; 41 professionals, representing 37.6%,
affirm that they fully agree; 19 professionals, representing 17.4%, state that they neither
agree nor disagree; and three professionals, representing 2.8%, state that they disagree.
Finally, two professionals, representing 1.8%, state that they totally disagree.
x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23
surveyed, 44 of them, Finally,

representing 40.4%,of affirm
the investigation that they
109 professionals completely
on the agree with
degree of effectiveness the fact
of logistics
activities, formulated in question 13, has shown that, of the 109 professionals surveyed,
that their companies control the degree of efficiency of logistics activities; 39 professionals,
44 of them, representing 40.4%, affirm that they completely agree with the fact that their
representing 35.8%, affirm that
companies they
control agree;of14efficiency
the degree professionals,
of logisticsrepresenting 12.8%, state
activities; 39 professionals, that
repre-
they neither agree nor disagree; and 10 professionals, representing 9.2%, claim to disagree.
senting 35.8%, affirm that they agree; 14 professionals, representing 12.8%, state that they
neither agree nor disagree; and 10 professionals, representing 9.2%, claim to disagree.
The hypotheses Thearehypotheses
contrasted, throughthrough
are contrasted, the use ofofthe
the use SmartPLS
the SmartPLS software.
software. The follow-The
following model (Figure
ing model 3)(Figure
represents the results.
3) represents the results.
Figure 3. Graphic representation of the hypothesis validation model.

Figure 3. Graphic representation of the hypothesis validation model.
As it can be observed in Table 9, the t statistic for the relationship between continuous
improvement and business results is 7.602, that is, it is far from 0. The p value is 0.000,
As it can be observed in Table
which is less 9, the
than 0.05. Theset statistic for thethat
results indicate relationship between
there is a high continuous
significance for the
improvement andestablished
businesshypothesis.
results isThat is to that
7.602, say that
is,ititdoes generate
is far fromthe0.effect
Thethat is sought
p value is to0.000,
be
demonstrated (Molina Arias, 2017). Likewise, the t statistic for the relationship between
which is less thanIndustry
0.05. These results indicate that there is a high significance for the
4.0 technologies and continuous improvement is 2.772, it is also far from 0. The
established hypothesis.
p value That isthat
is 0.006, to is,
say it isthat it does
less than generate
0.05, which thethat
indicates effect
it hasthat
high is sought to
significance. Forbe
the relationship between Industry 4.0 technologies and business
demonstrated (Molina Arias, 2017). Likewise, the t statistic for the relationship between results, the t statistic is
6.013, it is far from 0, and its p value is 0.000, which means that it is less than 0.05. This
Industry 4.0 technologies and continuous improvement is 2.772, it is also far from 0. The
indicates that it has high significance.
p value is 0.006, that is, it is less than 0.05, which indicates that it has high significance. For
the relationship between Industry SmartPLS
Table 9. 4.0 Bootsrapping.and business results, the t statistic is
technologies
6.013, it is far from 0, and itsOriginal p value
Sample isSample
0.000, which
Mean means
Standard that it tisStatistics
Deviation less than p0.05.
Values This
(O) (M) (STDEV) (l O/STDEV)
indicates
Continuous that→itBusiness
improvement has results
high significance.
0.600 0.586 0.079 7.602 0.000
Industry 4.0 technologies → Continuous improvement −0.231 −0.246 0.083 2.772 0.006
Industry 4.0 technologies → Business results −0.399 −0.444 0.066 6.013 0.000
Table 9. SmartPLSSource:
Bootsrapping.
Own elaboration (2021).
Original Sample Standard

t Statistics
Sample Mean Deviation p Values
(l O/STDEV)
(O) (M) (STDEV)
s improvement → Business results 0.600 0.586 0.079 7.602 0.000
“Regarding the values to consider a Path coefficient acceptable, authors such as

Chin, (1998) suggest that it should be = or> 0.2 or even> 0.3” [56] (p. 18). This indicates
that the relationships obtained between business results and continuous improvement
present a significant relationship. On the other hand, the relationship between Industry 4.0
technologies and business results does not present a significant relationship, as does the
relationship between Industry 4.0 technologies and continuous improvement. All this can
be seen in Table 10.
Table 10. Path coefficients.
Business Continuous Industry 4.0

Results Improvement Technologies
Business results 0.693
Continuous improvement 0.866
Industry 4.0 technologies −0.347 −0.466
Table 11 shows Cronbach’s alpha, that indicates the correlation between the items
included in a scale. According to Oviedo and Campo-Arias [57], Cronbach’s alpha values
between 0.70 and 0.90 suggest good internal consistency. This indicates that the Cronbach’s
alpha of business results have low internal consistency, while the Cronbach’s alpha of
continuous improvement and Industry 4.0 technologies have high internal consistency
of the scales. “The interpretation of Spearman’s rho coefficient agrees with values close
to 1; indicate a strong and positive correlation. Values close to –1 indicate a strong and
negative correlation. Values close to zero indicate that there is no linear correlation” [58].
The Spearman rho of the business results is close to 0, therefore, it indicates that there is no
correlation. On the other hand, Spearman’s rho for continuous improvement and Industry
4.0 technologies is close to 1, indicating a strong positive correlation. Composite reliability
greater than 0.60 is acceptable, while greater than 0.70 is ideal [59], which indicates that the
composite reliability of business results is not acceptable and that of continuous improve-
ment and Industry 4.0 technologies are ideal. Finally, the mean extracted variance (AVE) is
recommended to be greater than 0.5 so that the indicators of the latent variable are more
representative [60]. Indicators of business performance and Industry 4.0 technologies turn
out to be less representative. On the other hand, the indicators of continuous improvement
have shown that they are more representative.
Table 11. Construct reliability and validity.
Average
Cronbach’s Composite
rho_A Variance
Alpha Reliability
Extracted (AVE)
Business results 0.277 0.492 0.224 0.130
Continuous improvement 0.916 0.921 0.913 0.543
Industry 4.0 technologies 0.788 0.797 0.744 0.250
6. Discussion
Regarding our first aim, it was confirmed that the new technologies of Industry 4.0
positively impact business results. This statement may be the most obvious of the hypothe-
ses proposed, but it was necessary to measure this first assertion by the same procedure
as the rest of the hypotheses, thus, strengthening its validity and reinforcing the current
literature on the subject, such as the results presented by Torrent-Sellens [42] where it is
stated that companies that use 4.0 technologies manage to improve their business results,
or the studies by Blanco et al. [43] that describe how the use of these technologies reduces
production schedules, improves the flexibility of the company and the customization of
products, which translates into improved results.
Concerning the second aim, the proposed hypothesis is accepted, demonstrating that
the new technologies of Industry 4.0 promote continuous improvement. This hypothesis
is the basis of the research presented, directly relating the concepts of Industry 4.0 and
continuous improvement. The validity of this hypothesis, which has been demonstrated
in the results section, reveals that the efforts made by companies in the incorporation
of technologies related to Industry 4.0 are directly transferred to an improvement in the
quality of the companies’ processes, both in the processes that provide direct value to the
products and to the rest of the processes. Therefore, the use of these technologies is not
reflected as a punctual and specific modification of part of its processes, rather, it implies
the continuous improvement of the set of processes. This reaffirms what is extracted from
the bibliography [42] where it is indicated that 4.0 technologies increase the quality of
processes, as well as productivity and monitoring and control.
The combined effect of technology 4.0 and continuous improvement appears to
achieve better results in organizations. Mesa and Carreño [8], Torrent-Sellens [42] and
Blanco et al. [43], among others, suggested in their studies that that the implementation of
4.0 technologies causes typical effects of continuous improvement, such as improving the
quality of processes, and that all this translates into improved results. Our study is a proof
of the relationship between 4.0 technologies, continuous improvement, and business results.
All these points allow researchers to continue deepening the direct relationships between
Industry 4.0 and continuous improvement, allowing the formulation of new hypotheses
based on the hypotheses validated in this work.
Regarding managers, it can be concluded that the efforts made in the implementation
of 4.0 technologies and in continuous improvement translate into a direct increase in
business results. In addition, 4.0 technologies should not be seen only as a modification of
a specific process; these technologies have a positive impact on the set of processes through
continuous improvement, which increases organizational results.
7. Conclusions
This study analyzes the relationships between the technologies of Industry 4.0, contin-
uous improvement, and the business results. As has been verified in the discussion of the
results obtained, the initial hypotheses of this research are verified favorably, that is:
• The new technologies of Industry 4.0 positively impact business results.
• The new technologies of Industry 4.0 promote continuous improvement.
• Continuous improvement leads to higher business results.
The accomplishment of these hypotheses transfers to the companies the advantages
on the results of implementing the technologies available in the new industrial revolution,
being these technologies an enhancer of the continuous improvement of the organizations,
which again increases the results of the companies. With all this, it can be affirmed that the
efforts made by the companies in the acquisition and implementation of 4.0 technologies
are transferred to a continuous improvement of their processes and finally to an increase in
the results of the business lines.
Nevertheless, the cross-sectional design of this research is a disadvantage. Even
though the structural equations method was employed, interpretation of the causality
between the different constructs should be accepted with caution. In order to examine the
causality of these relationships, future research should use longitudinal studies. Second,
although this study uses a broad measure for organizational performance, the measure is
subjective and could be complemented with objective and financial data.
For future research, we also identify three approaches that could enrich the study of
the analyzed relationships. First, we suggest that it would be helpful to examine which
HRM practices are clearly linked to Industry 4.0 and their impact on organizational results.
Second, our model analyzes relationships among Industry 4.0, continuous improvement,
and business results. One of the main factors that are omitted from the model is environ-
mental management. In consequence, we suggest that future research should analyze how
environmental management could be enhanced to foster the relationships in the model.
Finally, future research should study in depth the functioning of Industry 4.0 in
relation to total quality models, since they include continuous improvement techniques.
Author Contributions: V.H.A.-M. and L.P.-G. are the originators of the initial idea for the work.
L.P.-G. developed the proposed models and methodology, V.H.A.-M. carried out the queries and
made the computations in SmartPLS. C.M.-R. analysed the results and presented the discussions
and conclusions. M.D. provided the state of the art and supervised the research work. All authors
analysed the data, preformed the formal analysis, and participated in the writing and revising of the
manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales of the
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) under Contract 2021-ICF05.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Porter, M.E. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance; Rei Argentina S.A: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1991.
2. del Val Román, J.L. Industry 4.0: The Digital Transformation of Industry; Conference of Directors and Deans of Computer Engineering;
Faculty of Engineering of the University of Deusto: Bilbao, Spain, 2016; Available online: http://coddii.org/wp-content/uploads/
2016/10/Informe-CODDII-Industria-4.0.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
3. González, L.G.; Díaz, C.A.C.; Gómez, N.L.G. ERP’s (Business Resource Planning) in Large and Medium-Sized Companies Allow a
Competitive Advantage. 2017, pp. 1035–1054. Available online: https://www.riico.net/index.php/riico/article/view/1489/1149
(accessed on 20 July 2021).
4. Quispe-Otocama, A.M.; Padilla-Martínez, M.P.; Telot-González, J.A.; Nogueira-Rivera, D. Information and communication
technologies in business management of pymes commercial. Ing. Ind. 2017, 38, 81–92.
5. Riascos-Erazo, S.C.; Arias-Cardona, V.H. Analysis of organizational impact on the process of implementation of ERP Information
Systems-Case Study. Entramado 2016, 12, 284–302. [CrossRef]
6. MBedón, I.C.; Piedrahita, L.O.C. Resource planning systems of public companies. Pro-Sci. Rev. De Prod. Cienc. E Investig. 2019, 3, 21–28.
7. Silva, J.D. Supply chain management: A review from logistics and the environment. Entre Cienc. E Ing. 2017, 11, 51–59.
8. Mesa, J.I.; Carreño, D.A. Methodology to apply Lean in supply chain management. Espacios 2020, 41, 30.
9. Bowersox, D.J.; Closs, D.J.; Cooper, M.B. Supply Chain Logistics Management; McGraw-Hill: México, Mexico, 2002; Available online:
https://books.google.com.ni/books?id=9Gu1AAAAIAAJ (accessed on 15 June 2021).
10. Ohno, T. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, 1st ed.; Productivity Press: Barcelona, Spain, 1991.
11. Schwartz, M. Synchronizing SCM with smart inventories. Logística 360 2018, 1, 50–52.
12. di Nardo, M.; Clericuzio, M.; Murino, T.; Sepe, C. An Economic Order Quantity Stochastic Dynamic Optimization Model in a
Logistic 4.0 Environment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4075. [CrossRef]
13. García, L.A.M. Integral Logistics Management. Best Practices in the Supply Chain, 2nd ed.; Ecoe Ediciones: Bogotá, Colombia, 2016.
14. Basco, A.I.; Beliz, G.; Coatz, D.; Garnero, P. Industry 4.0. Manufacturing the Future; Argentine Industrial Union, Inter-American
Development Bank and Institute for the Integration of Latin America and the Caribbean: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2018.
15. Rouhiainen, L. Artificial Intelligence: 101 Things You Should Know about Our Future Today; Alienta Editorial: Barcelona, Spain, 2018.
16. Waltersmann, L.; Kiemel, S.; Stuhlsatz, J.; Sauer, A.; Miehe, R. Artificial Intelligence Applications for Increasing Resource Efficiency
in Manufacturing Companies—A Comprehensive Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6689. [CrossRef]
17. Brossi, L.; Dodds, T.; Passeron, E. Artificial Intelligence and Youth Welfare in Latin America; LOM Ediciones: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2019.
18. Porcelli, A.M. Artificial intelligence and robotics: Its social, ethical and legal dilemmas. Derecho Glob. Estud. Sobre Derecho Justicia
2020, 6, 49–105. [CrossRef]
19. Qasem, Y.A.M.; Abdullah, R.; Jusoh, Y.Y.; Atan, R.; Asadi, S. Analyzing Continuance of Cloud Computing in Higher Education
Institutions: Should We Stay, or Should We Go? Sustainability 2021, 13, 4664. [CrossRef]
20. Di Nardo, M. Developing a Conceptual Framework Model of Industry 4.0 for Industrial Management. Ind. Eng. Manag. Syst.
2020, 19, 551–560. [CrossRef]
21. Osorio Montoya, J.A. Risk Management and Security in Cloud Computing for SMEs; Pilot University of Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia,
2018; pp. 1–11.
22. Rodríguez, G.S. Cloud computing: Some technical-legal considerations. Rev. Lex 2019, 17, 147–168.
23. Casado Robledo, M.J. Protecting information has been a constant throughout history. Rev. Española de Control Externo 2020, 22, 88–101.
24. Caamaño Fernández, E.E.; de J. Herrera Gil, R. Cybersecurity Risk Prevention from the Forensic Audit: Combining Organizational
Human Talent; NOVUM, Revista de Ciencias Sociales Aplicadas, National University of Colombia: Manizales, Colombia, 2020;
Volume 1, pp. 61–80.
25. Anitua Galdón, M.G. Autonomous Car Strategies of Automotive Companies and New Players; Comillas Pontifical University: Madrid,
Spain, 2019; Available online: https://repositorio.comillas.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11531/27730/TFG-%20Anitua%20
GaldoIn%2C%20MariIa%20Gabriela.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 30 May 2021).
26. Ramírez, L.A. Autonomous Vehicles; Faculty of Sciences and Technologies, Electronics and Informatics Department, Catholic
University “Nuestra Señora de la Asunción: Asunción, Paraguay, 2016; pp. 1–19.
27. Li, Y.; Díaz, M.; Morantes, S.; Dorati, Y. Autonomous vehicles: Innovation in urban logistics. Rev. RIC 2018, 4, 31–39.
28. Oppenheimer, A. Every Man for Himself, 1st ed.; Debate: Barcelona, Spain, 2018.
29. Harari, Y.N. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century; Debate: Barcelona, Spain, 2018.
30. Addati, G.A.; Pérez Lance, G. Introduction to UAVs, Drones or UAVs for Civil Use; University of CEMA: Buenos Aires, Argentina,
2014; Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/130802/1/799216895.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2021).
31. Wilson, A. Dominate the Drones, Basic Guide to Start Earning Money with Drones, 1st ed.; Babelcube Inc.: Antioch, Tennessee, 2018.
32. Guevara-Bonilla, M.; Meza-Leandro, A.S.; Esquivel-Segura, E.A.; Arias-Aguilar, D.; Tapia-Arenas, A.; Masís-Meléndez, F. Use of
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for the monitoring and management on natural resources: A synthesis. Rev. Tecnol. En Marcha
2020, 33, 77–88.
33. Ojeda Bustamante, W.; Flores Velázquez, J.; Ontiveros Capurata, R.E. Use and Handling of Drones with Applications to the Water
Sector, 1st ed.; Mexican Institute of Water Technology: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2016; Available online: https://www.imta.gob.
mx/biblioteca/libros_html/riego-drenaje/uso-y-manejo-de-drones.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2021).
34. Joyanes Aguilar, L. Big Data: Analysis of Large Volumes of Data in Organizations, 1st ed.; Alfaomega Grupo Editor S.A:
Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2013.
35. Parada Torralba, P. How Big Data has revolutionized logistics. Big Data 2020. Available online: https://www.iebschool.com/
blog/big-data-en-logistica-big-data/ (accessed on 15 May 2021).
36. Pape, J.P. Collaborative robots a new era in industrial automation. Pharmatech 2014, 1, 32–33.
37. Gualtieri, L.; Palomba, I.; Merati, F.A.; Rauch, E.; Vidoni, R. Design of Human-Centered Collaborative Assembly Workstations
for the Improvement of Operators’ Physical Ergonomics and Production Efficiency: A Case Study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3606.
[CrossRef]
38. Continuous Training Course.Collaborative Robotics Application, Mexico D.F, México. 2017. Available online: https://i-ctec.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Tema2_Conociendo-la-Robo%CC%81tica-Colaborativa-1.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2021).
39. Del C. Casal Angulo, M. Simulation as a Methodology for Learning Non-Technical Skills in Nursing; Nursing PhD Program; University
of Valencia: Valencia, Spain, 2016; Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71059825.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2021).
40. Núñez Ricardo, F.J. Using Virtual Reality Simulators in Basic Science Teaching; Faculty of Education and Humanities, Militar
University of Nueva Granada: Bogotá, Colombia, 2017; Available online: https://repository.unimilitar.edu.co/bitstream/handle/
10654/17077/Nu~nezRicardoFedericoJavier2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 18 July 2021).
41. Cantú-González, J.R.; del C. Guardado García, M.; Herrera Balderas, J.L. Process simulation, a perspective in pro to the operational
performance. Rev. Iberoam. De Prod. Académica y Gestión Educ. 2016, 3, 1–21.
42. Torrent-Sellens, J. Industry 4.0 and business results in Spain. Oikonomics 2019, 1, 1–11.
43. Blanco, R.; Fontodrona, J.; Poveda, C. Industry 4.0: The state of the art. Rev. Econ. Ind. 2017, 1, 151–164.
44. Ballestero, F.; González Aranda, J.M. The use of disruptive ICTs for improving environmental sustainability and competitiveness.
The opportunity represented by LifeWatch ERIC. Sostenibilidad Para La Compet. 2020, 1, 135–146.
45. Lodgaard, E.; Ingvaldsen, J.A.; Aschehoug, S.; Gamme, I. Barriers to continuous improvement: Perceptions of top managers,
middle managers and workers. Procedia CIRP 2016, 41, 1119–1124. [CrossRef]
46. Ghobakhloo, M. Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119869. [CrossRef]
47. Erol, S.; Jäger, A.; Hold, P.; Ott, K.; Sihn, W. Tangible Industry 4.0: A Scenario-Based Approach to Learning for the Future of
Production. Procedia CIRP 2016, 54, 13–18. [CrossRef]
48. Aznar Crespo, P. Quizzes in Google Forms [Webinar]; University of Alicante: Alicante, Spain, 2021; Available online: https:
//web.ua.es/es/ice/documentos/formacion/webinares/cuestionarios-en-google-forms.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2021).
49. Pacheco Cárdenas, A.S. Proposal for the Implementation of Industry 4.0 in the Manufacturing Sector of Bogotá; Degree Work; Catholic
University of Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2020; Available online: https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstream/10983/25322/
1/PROPUESTA%20DE%20IMPLEMENTACI%C3%93N%20DE%20LA%20INDUSTRIAL%204.0%20EN%20EL%20SECTOR%
20MANUFACTURERO%20DE%20BOGOT%C3%81.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2021).
50. National Association of Businessmen of Colombia. Digital Transformation Survey 2017; ANDI: Bogotá, Colombia, 2017; Available online:
http://www.andi.com.co/Uploads/Encuesta%20Transformaci%C3%B3n%20Digital%20ANDI.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2021).
51. Cano Olivos, P.; Orue Carrasco, F.; Martínez Flores, J.L.; Mayett Moreno, Y.; López Nava, G. Logistics management model for
small and medium-sized companies in Mexico. Contaduría y Adm. 2015, 60, 181–203.
52. Bravo Alay, K.V.; Martillo Fernández, K.E. Circular Economy and Industry 4.0 as a Strategy for International Trade in Ecuador;
University of Guayaquil Faculty of Administrative Sciences: Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2019; Available online: http://repositorio.ug.
edu.ec/handle/redug/45780 (accessed on 18 June 2021).
53. Garson, G.D. Partial Least Squares: Regression & Structural Equation Models; School of Public & International Affairs. North Carolina
State University: Asheboro, NC, USA, 2016; Available online: https://www.smartpls.com/resources/ebook_on_pls-sem.pdf
(accessed on 30 June 2021).
54. Otzen, T.; Manterola, C. Sampling Techniques on a Population Study. Int. J. Morphol. 2017, 35, 227–232. [CrossRef]
55. University of Cordoba. Data Analysis Using Computerized Procedures. Introduction to SPSS. 1st Psychopedagogy (Academic
Year 2009/2010). University of Córdoba. Faculty of Education Sciences. 2010. Available online: http://www.uco.es/dptos/
educacion/invadiv/images/stories/documentos/METODOS/RECURSOS/SPSS.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2021).
56. Nahuat Román, B. Influence of Intellectual Capital on Innovation: An Individual-Level Perspective. Nova Sci. 2020, 12, 1–31.
57. Oviedo, H.C.; Campo-Arias, A. Approach to the use of the alpha coefficient by Cronbach. Rev. Colomb. De Psiquiatr. 2005, 24, 572–580.
58. Martínez Ortega, R.M.; Tuya Pendás, L.C.; Martínez Ortega, M.; Pérez Abreu, A.; Cánovas, A.M. The correlation coefficient of the
Spearman ranks characterization. Rev. Habanera De Cienc. Médicas 2009, 8. Available online: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?
script=sci_arttext&pid=S1729-519X2009000200017 (accessed on 9 June 2021).
59. Angelo, D.L.; Neves, A.N.; Correa, M.; Sermarine, M.; Zanetti, M.C.; Brandao, M.R.F. Psychometric Properties of the Perfectionism
for Sports Performance Scale (PPS-S) for the brazilian context. Cuad. De Psicol. Del Deporte 2019, 19, 1–11. [CrossRef]
60. Méndez-Giménez, A.; Fernández-Río, J.; Cecchini-Estrada, J.A. Validation of the Spanish version of the Friendship Goals
Questionnaire in Physical Education. Univ. Psychol. 2014, 13, 227–238.

Sustainability 13 09965

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 09965

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editor: Roberto Cerchione

Sustainability 2021, 13, 9965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179965 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.1. New Technologies of Industry 4.0 in Logistics Management

2.1.1. Resource Planning Systems

2.1.2. Supply Chain Management (SCM)

Sustainability 2021, coordinated

Table 1. Advantages of the Supply Chain Management System (SCM).

Author and Year Advantage

2.1.3. Artificial Intelligence (AI)

2.1.4. Cloud Computing

Table 2. Main advantages of Cloud Computing compared to business aspects.

2.1.6. Autonomous Cars

2.1.8. Big Data, Data Analysis and Data Mining

2.1.9. Collaborative Robots

Table 4. Main advantages of 3D Simulation.

Figure 2. Hypothesis model.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Population under Study

Table 5. Economic sectors in which the surveyed professionals work.

Economic Valid Accumulated

Economic Valid Accumulated

Range of Valid Accumulated

Table 7. Age of the company in the market.

4.2. Collection of Information

4.2.2. Description of the Questionnaire

4.3. Statistical Analysis

Table 8. Results obtained in the final questionnaire.

Question Average Mode Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum

surveyed, 44 of them, Finally,

Figure 3. Graphic representation of the hypothesis validation model.

Original Sample Standard

“Regarding the values to consider a Path coefficient acceptable, authors such as

Table 10. Path coefficients.

Business Continuous Industry 4.0

Table 11. Construct reliability and validity.

You might also like