The integration of the Blended Learning Concept into Employee Training as a

Factor in Shifting Mentalities towards the Industry 4.0 Approach

A case study in automotive manufacturing

Sorina Moica, Alina Gherendi Cristina Veres

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management
University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and
Technology of Tirgu Mures
Tirgu Mures, Romania
e-mail: sorina.moica@ing.upm.ro
Department of Management and Economic Engineering
Technical University of Cluj-Napoca
Cluj Napoca, Romania
e-mail: harea.cristina@yahoo.com

Theodor Moica
Department of Psychiatry, Puls Medical Center
Tirgu Mures, Romania
e-mail: moica_dorel@yahoo.com

Abstract—The purpose of this paper is to present the concept
and the results of Blended Learning introduced in the training
process for directly productive employees. Blended Learning is
a new method used by modern universities and was introduced
by us in a factory environment. Technology and IT are
becoming the most important learning infrastructure,
especially for delivering learning to all employees, which may
be spread out over a vast geographical area. This is the reason
we chose to apply the Blended Learning concept in an
automotive production system, with the objective of preparing
people for the Industry 4.0 approach. The Blended Learning
implementation in the automotive factory leads to an increase
of knowledge on the topic of Lean methods, as well as to the
active participation of the personnel, in a direct or indirect
way, in the process of continuously improving activities. The
employees’ involvement generated an increase in performance
and productivity, as well as a rise in terms of quality and waste
reduction, as key elements of the Industry 4.0 approach.
processes have been optimized according to lean aspects” [4,
5].
On its path towards Industry 4.0, an automotive
manufacturing company decided to introduce Blended
Learning as a foundation for Lean management.
Lean manufacturing focuses on the elimination of wastes
from the organization. Wastes are defined as anything that
does not add value to the product [6].
Lean Thinking helps creating products or services that
add value to meet customer requirements in terms of cost,
quality and delivery time, as three main factors that
determine their satisfaction.
To give employees a better knowledge about Lean
Thinking a modular Blended Learning project was
developed.
II. ABOUT BLENDED LEARNING

Keywords-blended learning; Industry 4.0; production; A. Learning Process

training
I. INTRODUCTION
The term “Industry 4.0” refers to the smart factory in
which smart digital devices are networked and they
communicate with raw materials, semi-finished products,
products, machines, tools, robots and people [1].
A Smart Factory is a manufacturing solution that
provides such flexible and adaptive production processes that
will solve problems arising on a production facility with
dynamic and rapidly changing boundary conditions in a
world of increasing complexity [2, 3].
As a recent study showed, Lean Production is a
requirement for implementing Industry 4.0, “digitization can
only be implemented if the organization and in particular the
Different regions of the human adult brain are involved
in the complex process of learning: frontal lobes are related
to language production (left) and motivation; temporal lobes
play an important role in audition, language comprehension
(left), memory and emotion; parietal lobes are involved in
tactile sensation, visuospatial function (right), reading (left)
and calculation (left).
More than 80% of the information from the surroundings
is acquired through our visual system, meaning that occipital
lobes integrity is very important for learning, because vision
and visual perception are processed in this area [7].
In order to learn new information, adults have to be
motivated, to see, hear and understand each part of a new
concept, to memorize it and to be able to access it when is
needed.
Therefore, to improve knowledge accumulation and
achieve better results, blended learning combines objectivist
and constructivist approaches of the learning process,
described by Sue-Jen Chen [8].
In an objectivist approach, the learning process is
controlled by the instructor. The learning environment is
well structured, properly sequenced, and both the strategy
and the objectives are to be set by the trainer. The assessment
method of the objectivist approach is in line with the goals
and objectives and conducted at the end of the instruction.
There is also a focus on the cognitive process of knowledge
acquisition with this approach.
When using a constructivist approach, it is the trainee
(employee) who controls the learning process. This means
that the learning lies in problem-based and real-world tasks.
Here, the learning environment is flexible, as well as open,
and the goals are set by the learner and not the instructor.
The evaluation, in constructivist approach is continuous and
embedded in learning tasks and multiple perspectives. Social
negotiations are emphasized as well.
B. Different Definitions of Blended Learning
Education and training programmes are constantly
changing and developing, and in the recent years the rising
interest in e-learning has expanded and shifted its focus so
that many practitioners are now concerned with blended
learning programmes [9]. Deep and meaningful learning
experiences are best supported by actively engaged learners.
[10, 11].
Blended learning is still a developing field, yet different
definitions were given in specialty literature to describe the
new concept.
With the emergence of information communication
technology and increased penetration rate of the Internet,
using these facilities in learning environment has gradually
made e-learning environment meet the shortcomings of the
traditional face-to-face learning systems [12, 13].
The Innosight Institute Organization [14] depicts the
definition of Blended Learning by combining two
components (see Fig. 1):
a) a formal education program in which a student learns
at least in part through online delivery of content and
instruction with some element of student control over time,
place, path, and/or pace;
b) at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar
location away from home (e.g. school, university, lab, coffee
shop, library, campus).
Figure 1. Blended Learning components [15]
The brick-and-mortar importance is best clarified in the
definition given by Rovai and Jordan [16] of Blended
Learning concept - "a hybrid of classroom and online
learning that includes some of the conveniences of online
courses without the complete loss of face-to-face contact".
As Dziuban, Hartman, and Moskal described in 2004,
Blended learning is "a pedagogical approach that combines
the effectiveness and socialization opportunities of the
classroom with the technologically enhanced active learning
possibilities of the online environment, rather than a ratio of
delivery modalities" [17].
It is important to mention that blended learning does not
refer to a specific prescriptive model of education. The
instructor plays a crucial role in designing the blended
learning environment that is right for her/his students,
subject, and context.
C. Benefits and Challenges of Blended Learning
The first benefit of blended courses is that they are more
learner-centered. By making course materials available
online, instructors give their students the ability to review the
materials at their own pace and to watch more times the
lectures until the content makes sense. Additionally, in
blended courses, students are better able to develop their
metacognitive skills to reflect upon how they learn and to use
the additional online tools at their disposal to develop more
personalized learning strategies [8].
Courses can be designed to accomplish the same or better
learning outcomes with less time in class, which allows
students to complete more of the course elements in various
locations and times that better fit their schedules.
Also, because instructors deliver much of the content
online, they have opportunities to use class time in new and
more varied ways, rather than only using class time for
lecture delivery.
The third benefit is that instructors and learners are able
to get more immediate feedback throughout the course on
students' understanding.
The benefits of blended learning are important to
consider, but working on introducing the concept for
production employees for our case study has revealed some
challenges, too.
The first one is related to having a trained teacher who
can deal with both online and classroom lectures.
Another big challenge is that employees do not have
very good access to internet connection and other digital
devices.
The third challenge is related to motivation of the staff to
be perseverant in taking the online courses.
A blended learning course can be more effective than
traditional teaching, but it does require that students have
access to computers and internet access on a regular basis,
they want to learn perseveringly and they do have a trained
instructor.
III. METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the
importance and impact of Blended Learning in employees
training in the context of introducing the Industry 4.0
thinking. We conducted a study in an automotive company
located in Tirgu Mures, Romania, during three months
(April–June 2018). First, we evaluated the traditional
learning process using a questionnaire of 8 items. 100 people
completed it: 50 persons from Production U No.1 and other
50 from Production Factory No.2, both directly employed
(86 operators) and indirectly productive employees: storage,
maintenance and tool shop (14 people).
Subsequently we trained the employees using the
Blended Learning and we evaluated the results using a
questionnaire of 5 items. The statistical analysis was
performed with Minitab, version 18, using ANOVA Interval
Plot, for multiple Y’s with groups.
IV. STEPS TAKEN TO INTRODUCE BLENDED LEARNING IN
D IRECT PRODUCTION OPERATORS TRAINING
A. Evaluating Institutional and Course Readiness
It is important to understand that designing a blended
learning environment involves costs, especially if an
institution is just beginning to explore this educational
model. It will likely require substantial investments in
technology, human resources and time. The instructor should
build a team that has the necessary skills to design and
deliver both the online and classroom components of the
courses (e.g. video editing skills, education technology
implementation and computer programming).
In the first step, the company’s readiness was evaluated
and the Top Management commitment was confirmed. The
implementation team was formed and a project plan was
elaborated, considering goals, budget, time, company’s
training needs and so on.
B. Analyzing the Existing Course Material
In the second phase, it is important to consider whether
the existing course materials (e.g. syllabus, course
description, lesson plans, slide decks) need to be revised
before they are used in a blended learning format and assess
whether is needed to create additional resources.
Special attention should be paid to the content. The team
has to look into whether they have permission to use third
party materials in the course.
According to company’s needs of training, the course
material was prepared in the second phase.
C. Evaluate the Technological Infrastructure and Physical
Space
The course team should consider the opportunities and
limitations of the classroom’s physical space. Consider the
differences between a lecture hall and a small classroom. For
a blended learning experience to be successful, students will
need regular access to computers and to internet. If students
do not have access to this technology at home, the team
should think about some alternative access points (e.g. a lab,
a TV in canteen).
D. The Start of the Blended Learning Project
Once we have defined the project, identified resources
and created the learning material, the Blended Learning
process should start.
V. COMPARING TRADITIONAL AND BLENDED LEARNING
In order to compare the two learning systems, we
elaborated a study and we evaluated the employees’ levels of
knowledge regarding Lean system, as an important element
of Industry 4.0 thinking. After the first evaluation, we
performed a training session and then we evaluated again the
knowledge level of the employees.
A. Evaluation of Traditional Learning
For each question, answers were divided into three
categories: correct answers, 50% correct answers and wrong
answers. The resulted responses are shown in Figure 2.
It is important to mention that the company periodically
trains its employees, as Lean is part of the overall strategy,
so the all respondents were trained before with traditional
learning.
Figure 2. Results of Traditional Learning for each items
In figure 2, we can see that employees’ knowledge about
Lean production is very weak. In conclusion, in order to
increase their level of knowledge, they have to be trained
better or more.
We decided to use Blended Learning because we wanted
to increase the knowledge level of the factory employees, to
achieve this goal fast and have better results.
B. Train the Employees Using Blended Learning
First, we prepared a power point presentation to help
employees understand the 7 types of Muda (waste). In the
presentation, we used both text and videos. Text was used to
describe: what Muda is, which the 7 wastes are, what
generates Muda, how we recognize it, what impact it has and
how we eliminate it. Videos were used for a better
understanding for each of the 7 wastes.
The presentation is shown on TVs in canteens, at both
production facilities (see Figure 3).
 percentages) who answered correctly, 50% correctly or
incorrectly to a specific question. Circle diameter varies by
the number of people who responded correctly, 50%
correctly or incorrectly.
With the help of the chart, we can see that the incorrect
answers dominate this initial evaluation questionnaire.
Figure 3. Theoretical concepts presented on big screens

We conducted a training board together with the project

team. With the help of the panel, we developed and
presented four trainings on different subjects: Lean, 5S,
Muda and Suggestion System. These training sessions took
place at both production facilities of the company in
Romania.
To be able to train all directly productive staff, each type
of training took place for a period of 3 weeks, in the morning
shifts, before the first coffee break.
Through this mobile panel, the training has been done for
directly productive staff in production. The display was Figure 5. Results of the Traditional Learning
moved to the production hall, near the training area, in order
to avoid the long distance traveling of the staff to be trained. Figure 6 represents the answers to all the questions that
The training sessions were held by Lean operators of the were included in the final evaluation questionnaire, which
company, each of them being responsible for their segment. took place after Blended Learning training. Responses were
divided into three categories, depending on their correctness:
C. Evaluation of Blended Learning Training
correct answers, 50% correct answers and incorrect answers.
On the abscissa axis the answers of the 5 questions were
divided, depending on their correctness. On the vertical axis
we can identify the number of people (expressed in
percentages) who answered to the questionnaire. Circle
diameter varies by number of people who responded
correctly, 50% correct or incorrect to a specific question.
With the help of the chart, we can see that in this final
questionnaire the correct answers predominate.

Figure 4. Results of Blended Learning for each item

The graphs in Figures 2 and 4 represent the answers of

employees before, respectively after the Blended Learning
training. We can see that, as a result of the training sessions
which were implemented (two of four: Lean and 5S), the
knowledge of production employees has increased
considerably.
The question "What is the 5S System?" (Item 1), which
originally could not be answered by any person correctly,
increased to 45% of correct answers after the two training
Figure 6. Results of questionnair after Blended Learning Training
sessions which were implemented.
The number of inaccurate responses decreased, from Figure 7 contains the percentage of answers for all three
initially 31% of the respondents, to 11%, considering the fact categories (correct answers, 50% correct answers and wrong
that the values were collected in the middle of the Blended answers) for each training method. Date is the categorical
Learning Process, after only two training sessions of the total variable for grouping. The graph shows the confidence
four. interval for the mean percentage answers for each
D. Comparing Traditional and Blended Learning questionnaires, clustered by three categories: correct
On Figure 5 we can see on the abscissa axis the answers answers, 50% correct answers and wrong answers.
of the 8 questions, depending on their correctness (0% ANOVA Interval Plot analysis shows that there are
correct, 50% correct and 100% correct). On the vertical axis, significant statistical differences between the two learning
we can identify the number of people (expressed in methods: Traditional Learning and Blended Learning.
Additionally, it is interesting to notice that there is a
significant increase level of correct answer after introducing
Blended Learning training for employees comparing with the
low level of correct answer in the Traditional Learning
methods.
Interval Plot of Correct answer, 50%Correct Answer, Incorrect answer
95% CI for the Mean
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
Data
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Date 1 2 1 2
Correct answer 50%Correct Answer
Individual standard deviations are used to calculate the intervals.
Figure 7. ANOVA Interval Plor for Traditional Learning and Blended
Learning
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The implementation of Blended Learning into production
environment leads to improved results, in terms of
knowledge and not only.
This research has only been at the stage of increasing
knowledge, not yet towards increasing behavior. Further
research needs to be discussed to measure the impact on
productivity on the production floor.
As a result several improvements were achieved at the
same time: decreased waste of movement of all staff to the
training space, no use of conference spaces, efficient use of
time, training achieved for a large number of employees at
the same time, better knowledge assimilation due to multiple
repetition of the same video during the day.
Due to the willingness to implement Industry 4.0, with
the focus on Lean in this company, through the processes of
awareness and initiation, we have managed to actively get all
direct and indirect personnel involved, from all departments,
but especially from the production part.
Because of initiations and example-based explanations,
the improvement of the following performance indicators
can be observed:
 Quality: the reduction of waste, the decrease of serial
defects, the increase in responsibility (the verification of
the products is made on the premise “I don’t accept, I
don’t forward inconsistent products”).
 Productivity: the increase of individual and group
productivity, achieved throw optimizing processes and
increasing the “one piece flow” on all production
segments.
 5S: the increase of the degree of implementation and
conformation to the 5S standards on a factory level.
The improvement of these key production indicators
evidently leads to the increase of company’s productivity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the University of Medicine,
Pharmacy, Science and Technology from Tirgu Mures and
by the Technical University of Cluj Napoca.
We are grateful to direct production employees, top and
middle management of Hirschmann Romania who helped us
with the implementation of this study.© Reproduction or full
Date
Traditional Learning or partial use of this content in any publications, and by any
Blended Learning
means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilm,
etc.) is prohibited if there is no prior written consent of
Hirschmann Romania through its representatives.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Vuksanović, J. Ugarak, and D. Korčok, “Industry 4.0: the Future
Concepts and New Visions of Factory of the Future Development”
Sinteza 2016, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.15308/Sinteza-2016-293-298.
[2] A. Radziwon, A. Bilberg, M. Bogers, and E. S. Madsen, “The Smart
1 2 Factory: Exploring Adaptive and Flexible Manufacturing Solutions,”
Incorrect answer Procedia Engineering, vol. 69, 2014, pp. 1184–1190.
[3] E. Hozdić, "Smart factory for industry 4.0: A review", International
Journal of Modern Manufacturing Technologies, vol. 7 (1), 2015, pp.
28-35.
[4] C. Prinz, N. Kreggenfeld, B. Kuhlenkotter, “Framework of Strategic
Learning: The PDCA Cycle”, Management vol.10 (2), 2018, p 149–
161.
[5] C. Veres, L. Marian, S. Moica, K. Al-Akel, and D. Hosu, “Industry
4.0 Implementation Model: Taking Steps Towards Digitization,” Proc.
Review of Management and Economic Engineering International
Management Conference (RMEE 2018), Todesco Publishing House,
Cluj-Napoca, 2018, pp. 503-510.
[6] S. Gupta, S. Jain, "A literature review of lean manufacturing,"
International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
Management, vol. 8(4), 2013, pp. 241-249, doi: 10.1080.
[7] Sadock, B. J. and Sadock, V. A., “Kaplan and Sadock’s Synopsis of
Psychiatry”, 10th Edition. Philadelphia : s.n., 2007. Lippincott
Williams &Wilkins. pg. 85-87.
[8] Chen, J.S. “Instructional Design Strategies for Intensive Online
Courses: An Objectivist-Constructivist Blended Approach”, Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 6 (1), 73–86, 2007.
[9] B. Allan, “Blended Learning: Tools for Teaching and Training,” Facet
Publishing, London, 2007, pp.2.
[10] G. D. Kuh, J. Kinzie, J. H. Schuh, E. J. Whitt, and Associates,
“Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter”,
Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 2005.
[11] D. R. Garrison and N. D. Vaughan, “Blended Learning in Higher
Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines”, John Wiley &
Sons, INC, San Francisco, 2008.
[12] S. Bocconi and G. Trentin, “Modelling blended solutions for higher
education: teaching, learning and assessment in the network and
mobile technology era,” Educational Research and Evaluation, vol.20,
n.7-8 2014, pp. 516-535, doi: 10.1080/13803611. 2014.99636.
[13] F. Seraji, “Blended Learning in Distance Education: A Comparative
Study of Selected Mega Open Universities,” Quarterly Journal of
Iranian Distance Education (IDEJ) Year 2017, No 1, pp. 9-24.
[14] H. Staker and M. B. Horn, “Classifying K–12 Blended Learning”,
Innosight Institute, May 2012, www.innosightinstitute.org.
[15] www.theteslaacademy.com, accessed on 27.11.2018.
[16] A.P. Rovai and H.M. Jordan, “Blended Learning and Sense of
Community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online
graduate courses”, The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, Vol.5, no.2, 2004.
[17] C.D.Dziuban, J.L.Hartman and P.D.Moskal, “Blended Learning”,
ECAR Research Bulletin, vol. 2004, issue 7, 2004, p.3.