Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Available ScienceDirect
online atonline
Available www.sciencedirect.com
at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)

Procedia 000–000
CIRP 72 (2018) 404–409
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

51st CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems

Concept for an evolutionary maturity

28th CIRP Design Conference,based Industrie
May 2018, 4.0 migration model
Nantes, France

A new methodology
Leineweber, to analyze
Stefana*; Wienbruch, Thoma; the
Lins,functional and physical
Dominik Kreimeier, architecture
Dietera, Kuhlenkötter, of a
Bernd
existing products
Ruhr-Universitätfor
a
anLehrstuhl
Bochum, assembly oriented
für Produktionssysteme; product
Universitätsstraße family
150; 44801 identification
Bochum, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-234-32-28713 ; fax: +49-234-32-08713. E-mail address: Leineweber@lps.rub.de

Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France

Abstract
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu
Even though Industrie 4.0 is a popular topic in the manufacturing industry, many enterprises especially small and medium sized ones are not
aware of the scopes of this topic. As a result, they do not know how to evolve towards Industrie 4.0. Often the first advancement attempts fail
due to a lack of knowledge of the interdependencies between the three dimensions of the sociotechnical approach (technology, organization,
Abstract
employees). Therefore, this paper introduces a concept for an evolutionary maturity based migration model, which guides enterprises on their
way to Industrie 4.0 in due consideration of the dimension‘s technology, organization and employees. The migration model uses a set of maturity
In today’s
levels business
which environment,
are designed thequantities
in distinct trend towards more productforvariety
of characteristics andcriteria.
different customization is unbroken.
In total the Due tomore
model contains this than
development, the criteria.
forty of these need of
agile
Withandthe reconfigurable
assistance of thisproduction systems emerged
model enterprises to first
are able to copelocate
with various products
their current stateand product
in the families.
different To design
production related and optimize
criteria and production
afterwards
systems
perceiveasandwell
set as to next
their choose the optimal
objectives. product
In this context,matches,
the modelproduct analysis methods
also considers dependenciesare needed. Indeed,
of assorted most of the
characteristics of known methods
the criteria, aim to
and thereby
analyze a product or one product family on the physical level. Different product families, however, may differ largely in terms
reveals potentially next steps for the enterprises on their way to Industrie 4.0 and further necessary steps that have to be accomplished beforehand. of the number and
nature of components. This fact impedes an efficient comparison and choice of appropriate product family combinations
The main goal is to enable especially small and medium sized enterprises to evolve towards Industrie 4.0 without utilizing external consulting. for the production
system.
Hence theA new methodology
paper will begin withis proposed to analyze
a description of theexisting
underlyingproducts in perspective
holistic view of theirconsisting
functionalofand
the physical architecture.
sociotechnical approach,Thethe
aimconsideration
is to cluster
these
of theproducts in new
individual assembly
situation oriented
and the product
strategic goals.families for the optimization
Subsequently the development of existing
processassembly lineswill
of the model andbetheset
creation of future reconfigurable
out. Afterwards the developed
assembly
migrationsystems.
model willBased on Datumand
be presented Flow theChain, theparts
different physical structure
as well as theirofpurposes
the products
will is
beanalyzed.
described.Functional
The papersubassemblies
will finish withare identified,
a short reportand
on
athe
functional analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional
validation of the model in practical applications within real enterprises. and physical architecture graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts the
similarity between product families by providing design support to both, production system planners and product designers. An illustrative
example
© 2018 Theof a Authors.
nail-clipper is used by
Published to explain
Elsevierthe B.V.proposed methodology. An industrial case study on two product families of steering columns of
thyssenkrupp
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientificgive
Presta France is then carried out to a first industrial
committee of the 51stevaluation of the proposed
CIRP Conference approach. Systems.
on Manufacturing
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility
Keywords: Industrie of theholistic
4.0; maturity model; scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Design Conference 2018.
approach

Keywords: Assembly; Design method; Family identification

1. Introduction Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index by ACATECH [7]. These

solutions, as well as most others, have in common that they do
1. Introduction of the product range and characteristics manufactured and/or
Defined first by Kagermann the term “Industrie 4.0” is not focus on a particular business division or business unit
around since 2011 [1]. Meanwhile it is well known in the assembled
within theirinapplication,
this system.but In rather
this context,
considerthethemain challenge
entire enterprise in
Due to theindustry.
manufacturing fast development
Despite that, in the domain
especially small andof modelling and analysis is now not only to cope
in the context of Industrie 4.0. Consequently, the complexity of with single
communication and an ongoing trend of digitization
medium enterprises are not always aware of the scope of this and products, a limited
the application product is
of solutions range
high.orTherefore,
existing product
it is notfamilies,
possible
digitalization,
topic [2, 3]. Inmanufacturing
fact, there areenterprises
already severalare facing important
solutions in this but
for enterprises to apply these concepts without costlytoexternal
also to be able to analyze and to compare products define
challenges in today’s market environments:
environment, in form of guidelines, recommendations for a continuing new product families. It can be observed that classical
consulting or the acceptance of only superficial results that have existing
tendency
action andtowards
maturityreduction
models of product companies.
to support development timesofand
Some the product families
no benefit for are
the regrouped
enterprises. in function of clients
Furthermore, most or features.
of these
shortened product lifecycles. In addition, there is
most recent and popular solutions in this context are for an increasing However,
solutions are still very technology and organizational to
assembly oriented product families are hardly find.
driven,
demand
exampleofthecustomization,
Impuls Industriebeing4.0at Readiness
the same timeModellin a[4],
global
The On the product family level, products differ mainly
although in the research field Industrie 4.0 it has already been in two
competition with competitors all over the world.
Orientation Guide for the Introduction into Medium-Sized This trend, main
recognized that the human factor is an important part in the
characteristics: (i) the number of components and (ii) the
which is inducing
Businesses by the the development
VDMA [5], Thefrom macro Model
Maturity to micro
for type of components
context of Industrie (e.g. mechanical, electrical, electronical).
4.0 [8].
markets, results in diminished lot sizes
Assessing Industrie 4.0 Readiness and Maturity of due to augmenting Classical methodologies
As a result, on their wayconsidering
to Industriemainly single products
4.0 companies are in
product varieties by
Manufacturing (high-volume
Fraunhoferto Austria
low-volume [6] production)
as well as [1]. the or solitary, already existing product families
need of a tool which they can use independently and analyze the
that also
To cope with this augmenting variety as well as to be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
identify possible optimization potentials in the existing causes difficulties regarding an efficient definition and
2212-8271 © system,
production 2018 The it
Authors. Publishedtobyhave
is important Elsevier B.V.
a precise knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 51st CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.

2212-8271©©2017
2212-8271 2018The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V. B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 51stDesign
CIRP Conference
Conference2018.
on Manufacturing Systems.
10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.155
 Stefan Leineweber et al. / Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 404–409
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
provides more concrete recommendations for action than
existing solutions [3, 7]. This is to be provided by the concept
of an Industrie 4.0 maturity model presented below.
2. Scientific basis
2.1. Industrie 4.0
As described above, the concept of Industrie 4.0 was
introduced by Kagermann in 2011 in context of the launch of
the High Tech Strategy of the German government [1]. In
general Industrie 4.0 implies the connection of production and
modern information and communication technologies, where
intelligent and digitally integrated systems are supposed to
create a self-organized production [9]. This is done in the
context of creating an optimal communication between
different company levels within the whole value chain [4]. In
contrast to the Computer Integrated Manufacturing movement
in the 1980s, striving for complete automation on the shop floor
with the approach of centralized controlling, the human factor
takes a significant part in the fourth industrial revolution [10].
Consequently, in a successful implementation of Industrie 4.0,
the personnel is supposed to make decisions on the basis of
their experience and based on information provided to them by
current technologies at the right time and in the right place.
Even though the vision of Industrie 4.0 is generally already
quite clear, experts believe that the transformation process that
companies are undergoing is more likely to be described as
evolutionary [4, 6].
There are also a number of concepts and technologies that
are associated with Industrie 4.0. Some of them are even used
synonymously for the term Industrie 4.0. These include, for
example, the terms Cyber-Physical System, Cyber Physical
Production System, Smart Factory or Internet of Things.
However, it is hardly possible to distinguish these terms from
each other as well as from the term Industrie 4.0. This is due to
the fact that all of these terms have so far been ambiguously
defined, which also applies to the term Industrie 4.0
Nonetheless, some definitions or definition approaches exist -
worth mentioning here would be those of KAGERMANN [11],
BITKOM [12] and SPATH [10]. However, these definitions
differ in their level of detail and content. On the one hand, this
is due to the current state of research at the time the definition
was set up, but in particular to the viewpoint or research focus
of the respective authors. In order to provide a scientific basis
for the maturity model concept described here in chapter 3, the
most common definitions of Industrie 4.0 were analyzed at the
Chair of Production Systems at the Ruhr-University of Bochum
with regard to their content. An Industrie 4.0 description was
compiled on the basis of the results. This description does not
represent an approach to a definition, but merely reflects the
current concepts and contents, which can be assigned to the
field of Industrie 4.0. The set up description is given in the
following:
Smart Factories command Cyber-Physical Production
Systems, which regulate individual Cyber-Physical Systems in
real time. These Cyber-Physical Systems, in turn, regulate their
own processes autonomous and decentralized. The integration
and communication of all as Cyber-Physical Systems acting
405
units, which are involved in the value chain, is given in every
factory which is part of a value chain network. All domains of
Industrie 4.0 are permeated by the Internet of Things and are
based on digitalization. The data is provided locally and the
large quantity of data is accordingly collected and processed.
Due to the increasing complexity, employees need further
competences. The acquisition of these competences is
supported by Cyber-Physical Systems. The personnel is making
decisions based on their experience and the information
provided by Cyber Physical Systems. The organization depends
on a horizontal and vertical integration of processes and on
their transparency. The change caused by Industrie 4.0
requires new business processes and enables new business
models.
2.2. The socio-technical approach in context of Industrie 4.0
As already mentioned in the delimitation to the Computer
Integrated Manufacturing movement as well as in the
description mentioned above, Industrie 4.0 is not a purely
technical revolution [10]. According to HIRSCH-KREINSEN,
it can be assumed that Industrie 4.0 represents a disruptive,
structure-changing process innovation [8]. This means that this
transformation process does not only affect individual jobs,
activities and the qualifications of individuals, but also has
consequences for the entire organizational and social structure
of a production system. In the event of widespread
implementation, the existing landscape of work in industrial
production will change in the long term. This applies not only
internal but also inter-company change processes, since the
structures of entire value chains can change [8].
The concept of the socio-technical system is used here in
order to be able to adequately identify associated
transformation tendencies. A socio-technical system is a
production unit consisting of interdependent technological,
organizational and personnel subsystems [13]. The dimension
technology includes, for example, all elements that are related
to operational production or administrative tasks, whereas the
dimension organization essentially comprises elements at all
company levels that contribute to structuring and regulating
work processes [14]. The personnel dimension also includes
elements related to the personnel itself, as well as essential
qualification and participation activities. Therefore, a
company's transformation in the direction of Industrie 4.0 must
take into account all socio-technical dimensions (Technology,
Organization and Personnel) in equal measure.
2.3. Maturity models in context of Industrie 4.0
Maturity models are a subcategory of models. Their origins
lie in the field of software development, where they were used
to assess the quality of implemented processes in an enterprise.
Relevant examples of such models are CMMI (Capability
Maturity Model Integration) and SPICE (Software Process
Improvement and Capability Determination). In general
maturity models describe an actual situation with complex
coherences, but reduced to essential traits. It describes a
progress from a current state to a target state, with the help of
406 Stefan Leineweber et al. / Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 404–409
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
defined levels/characteristics within a certain
dimension/criteria.
In the environment of Industrie 4.0, small and medium
enterprises in particular are highly uncertain about the direction
of development to be pursued and also the existing
development opportunities. In order to cope with this situation,
the concept of the maturity model offers a solution.
Accordingly, an increasing number of Industrie 4.0 maturity
models can be noted. In this context they are generally utilized
to assess a company’s actual state and their potential regarding
to Industrie 4.0, within a variety of different Industrie 4.0
criteria. To illustrate this variety of criteria as well as the
utilized evaluation schemes of the individual models two
examples of existing relevant models are given below.
The first example is the Industrie 4.0 Readiness Check
Maturity Model [4]. The focal point in this model is on
detecting the individual potential of an enterprise for a
transformation to Industrie 4.0. Therefore, their maturity level
in six dimensions (Strategy and Organization, Smart Factory,
Smart Operations, Smart Products, Data-Driven Services and
Employees), each including two topics, is assessed. Each
dimension consists of seven levels, from Zero (Beginners) to
Six (Excellence). The individual assessments are then
summarized in an Industrie 4.0 overall maturity level. Another
example for a maturity model in the Industrie 4.0 environment
is the VDMA-Toolbox which is part of the VDMA-Guideline for
Implementing Industrie 4.0. This Toolbox is supposed to offer
ideas and approaches to the company for implementing
Industrie 4.0 [5]. This maturity model consists of twelve
aspects divided into the categories Product (Integration of
Sensors, Connectivity, Functionalities for Data Storage and
Information Exchange, Monitoring, Product-related IT-
Services, Product-Business-Models) and Production (Data
Processing in Production, Machine to Machine
Communication, Company-wide Cross-linking with
Production, ICT-Infrastructure in Production, Human
Machine Interface, Efficiency at Small Batches). At what
degree the enterprise meets the aspects is determined by five
levels of development.
However, most of the Industrie 4.0 maturity models do not
regard the socio-technical approach entirely. The focal point is
mostly still on technical and organizational aspects. Therefore,
the personnel related topics are often not properly discussed.
Further, interdependencies between the various Industrie 4.0
criteria defined in these maturity models or even just the three
socio-technical dimensions are not sufficiently thematised.
Accordingly, the benefits of these models for enterprises are
limited if they do not hire an external consultant.
3. Maturity Model Concept
3.1. Basic information about the maturity model concept
In order to be able to give enterprises concrete
recommendations for action, a tool, as already described above,
must first be limited to a certain field. This could be it a
business division or an area of an enterprise [7]. Consequently,
the concept of a maturity model presented here refers to the
production environment within an enterprise and, in some
3
cases, to adjacent areas. This environment also holds the
greatest potential of Industrie 4.0 [15].
In the production environment, a distinction between
different company levels can be made according to the concept
of the automation pyramid [16]. These levels remained intact
despite the dissolution of the hierarchical concept of the
pyramid in the context of Industrie 4.0 and differ depending on
the variant of the automation pyramid [16, 17]. Within the
scope of the concept described here, a distinction is made
between the following three levels: Corporate Management
Level, Production Management Level and Shop-Floor Level
[14]. However, the focus of the concept of the maturity model
is on the lower two levels and the adjacent areas (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1: Visualization of the three production levels [14] and focus area of the
presented maturity model concept
The basis for the content of the maturity model concept is
the description of Industrie 4.0 set up at the Chair of Production
Systems, which, in turn, is a result of the analysis of existing
definitions as described above and the analysis of existing
Industrie 4.0 maturity models. Furthermore an industry-related
orientation of the model content must be guaranteed. To ensure
this, the prototype of the maturity model was used by all
industrial partners of the research project Adaption for
evaluation purposes [18]. Requirements regarding the content
and wording of the model were taken into account. Derived
from this content there are forty-four Industrie 4.0 criteria,
which target the above described area of production. Even if
most of the criteria cannot be assigned to only one of the three
dimensions of the socio-technical approach, there can be
located a dimension with the largest share of the criteria.
Moreover, to differentiate between various levels within a
criteria, each of them is subdivided in assorted characteristics.
The number of assorted characteristics is depending on the
criteria and ranges from minimum three to maximum eight
characteristics. These characteristics do not necessarily build
on one another, but just as the number of characteristics, this
depends on the respective criteria. The following table shows a
few instances of the developed criteria of the maturity model
concept and their assignment to a main dimension as well as
the number of characteristics used (Table 1).
 Stefan Leineweber et al. / Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 404–409 407
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000

Table 1: Criteria within the maturity model concept indicate that the overall system of production and the
interdependencies that occur here must be taken into account
Criteria Number of Main when changing processes in technical, organizational and
Characteristics Dimension
personnel areas shall be successful.
Machine Data Acquisition 5 T In addition to the concept of the mere maturity model, as it
Maintenance 5 T is part of the research project Adaption, dependencies between
Evaluation of Data and Mass Data 5 T the various criteria and characteristics must therefore be
… … … defined. In turn, this does not imply that the model presented
here claims to demonstrate all factors and interactions between
IT-Security / Industrial Security 4 O
areas that need to be considered in a transformation process.
Deployment of Personnel 6 O
However, in contrast to the Industrie 4.0 maturity models
Personnel Capacity Data 6 O mentioned above, a more concrete form of links between the
… … … dimensions of technology, organization and personnel is to be
Expertise 6 P described here.
Methodical Expertise 6 P In general, there is a large number of dependency forms in
this context. Initially, however, two different forms of links are
Personnel Development and Qualification 5 P
to be defined here. First of all, there are Relations. Relations
… … …
are to be considered at criteria level and describe that two
criteria are connected. This is expressed in the fact that when
To provide a better understanding, there are descriptions for an enterprise sets its target status in one criteria using the
each criteria as well as for each characteristic, which not be set maturity model, further criteria with a thematic reference are
up in this paper due to the high quantity of the criteria. In relevant. It does not refer to individual characteristics of the
addition, the maturity model concept is accompanied by a criteria. The following example is based on one of the
glossary explaining technical terms that may not be known to classifications carried out by the enterprises which are part of
an enterprise. the research project Adaption (Fig. 2).*
The here presented concept of a maturity model can be used
for various purposes. In the context of the research project
Adaption, it is part of the procedure model that was likewise
developed in the project. Here it is utilized to establish detailed
assessments of the Industrie 4.0 level of a specific pilot sector
in an enterprise. In this regard enterprises have the possibility
to define objectives in the form of target states within the model
at various points in their evolutionary Industrie 4.0 migration
process. The long-term goal of any enterprise using the
maturity model should be to achieve the highest characteristic
level of each criteria without neglecting economic and social
aspects. It is further possible that the short-term optimum
situation for an enterprise is described by a lower characteristic
as it is currently stated.

3.2. The maturity model concept under the consideration of

the socio-technical approach

As mentioned above, the maturity model concept presented

here is used for a detailed determination of the enterprise's
current state as well as for the determination of desired target
states in a variety of areas. Achieving a target status that the
enterprise strives for is a process which successful realization
often requires further progress in other areas. This implies that
progress in one criteria of the model may also need an advance
in other criteria in order to ensure the successful achievement
of the target state. This is du3e to the socio-technical approach Fig. 2: Visualization of Relations using the criteria Maintenance as an
[14, 8] as well as to the preceding approaches [19], which example.

*Itis not possible to set out the entire classification of the enterprises in the presented in the following figures two, three and four are only derived from
maturity model within this paper due to the confidentiality agreement and the the results of the actual state assessments respectively the target state
protection of the commercial exploitation of the project results after project definitions made by the project enterprises.
end. Consequently, the examples of the different types of dependencies
408 Stefan Leineweber et al. / Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 404–409
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
In this example, an enterprise has the objective to achieve
the characteristic 3 within the criteria "Maintenance", starting
from the currently determined characteristic 2. In this context
the criteria “Maintenance” has Relations to further criteria,
which could affect the achieving of the target state. These are,
inter alia, the criteria: Technical Machinery and Equipment
Documentation, Evaluation of Data and Mass Data, Human-
Machine-Interface, IT-Security and Personnel Development
and Qualification. Further information to special Relations to
criteria of the dimension personnel will be discussed at a later
point.
In addition, other more detailed types of links are defined as
follows. They are referred to as Dependencies. These
dependencies describe the concrete linkage between the
attainment of a certain characteristic of a criteria and the
attainment of another characteristic of another criteria. The
achievement of the additional characteristics is required for
achieving the desired target state and therefore constitutes a
recommendation for action by the enterprise in this area. An
example of this type of link is shown in the following figure
(Fig. 3).
Fig. 3: Visualization of Dependencies using characteristic 3 of the criteria
Maintenance as an example.
In this example, it can be seen that the achievement of
characteristic 3, starting from characteristic 2, in the criteria
Maintenance is directly linked to the achievement of
characteristic 2 of the criteria Machine data acquisition. In
order to keep complexity at a manageable level, however, only
5
first-degree Dependencies are taken into account in this
context.
The examples presented here so far, both for Relations and
for Dependencies, demonstrate mainly links between criteria
and its characteristics of the dimensions technology and
organization. The situation is different with regard to Relations
and Dependencies within the framework of the personnel
dimension. The criteria assigned to the personnel dimension are
generally less specific in their definition. This is also reflected
in the characteristics of the criteria, which, on the contrary to
criteria of the dimensions technology and organization, are set
up only partly on each other. This can be illustrated by the
criteria Personnel Development and Qualification, which
comprises activities to systematically promote the
qualifications and skills of employees in an enterprise.
Personnel development is generally necessary after any kind of
technical or organizational progress, i.e. after a change in the
characteristics of a criteria. However, it is not possible to
determine how this personnel development has to be carried out
specifically depending on other criteria of the other two
dimensions. Accordingly, there are no Dependencies for this
exemplary criteria as well as for other criteria of the personnel
dimension. Though, Relations between criteria from the
technical and organizational dimensions and criteria from the
personnel dimension exist and are considered in this approach.
In addition, there are Relations between criteria within the
Personnel dimension, as well (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4: Visualization of Relations and the concept of the independent
maximum characteristic level in the personnel dimension using the criteria
Personnel Development and Qualification as an example.
 Stefan Leineweber et al. / Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 404–409
6 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
Furthermore, it is therefore an objective in certain criteria of
the personnel dimension to achieve a minimum characteristic
and, irrespective of other criteria, to achieve a higher
characteristic. This also applies to the criteria Personnel
Development and Qualification in the figure illustrated above
(Fig. 4).
4. Conclusion
In the case of a successful enterprise development towards
Industrie 4.0, the three dimensions of technology, organization
and personnel must be taken into account to the same extent as
well as possible dependencies between them. The first is
achieved in the concept of the Industrie 4.0 maturity model
presented here by identifying various Industrie 4.0 criteria,
which are derived from common definitions and maturity
models and can be assigned to one of the three dimensions. The
links between the dimensions to be considered during the
migration to Industrie 4.0 are described in the model context by
Relations and Dependencies. Through these, enterprises
identify further required areas of action which must be taken
into account when reaching a defined target state. Furthermore,
it is the objective to implement this maturity model concept as
part of a procedure model of the research project Adaption
within a software tool. This will make it possible for enterprises
to easily classify and orient themselves in the context of
Industrie 4.0 without external consulting.
In order to provide even more comprehensive support for
companies in the environment of Industrie 4.0 in the future,
there is still a requirement for modular solutions that focus on
specific business sectors or areas.
Acknowledgements
Parts of this article have been elaborated during the research
and development project Adaption ”Reifegradbasierte
Migration zum Cyber-physischen Produktionssystem”
(reference number: 02P14B020) within the „Industrie 4.0 –
Forschung auf den betrieblichen Hallenboden“ call, which is
promoted by the German Federal Ministry for Education and
Research (BMBF) and is supervised by the Project
Management Agency Karlsruhe (PTKA) at the Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology (KIT).
References
[1] Kagermann, H.; Lukas, W. D.; Wahlster, W.: Industrie 4.0: [online]. Mit
dem Internet der Dinge auf dem Weg zur 4. industriellen Revolution. VDI
Nachrichten; (13); 2011.
[2] Bischoff, J.; Taphorn, C.; Wolter, D.; Braun, N.; Fellbaum, M.; Goloverov,
A. et al.: Erschließen der Potenziale der Anwendung von ‚Industrie 4.0‘ im
409
Mittelstand“. Study commissioned by the Bundesministeriums für
Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi). Ed. by. J. Bischoff and Agiplan GmbH.
Mülheim an der Ruhr; 2015.
[3] Meißner, A; Glass, R.; Gebauer, C.; Stürmer, S., Metternich, J.: Hindernisse
der Industrie 4.0 – Umdenken notwendig? ZWF 112. Carl Hanser Verlag
GmbH & Co. KG; 2017. p. 207-611.
[4] K. Lichtblau, V. Stich, R. Bertenrath, M. Blum, M. Bleider, A. Millack, K.
Schmitt, E. Schmitz, and M. Schröter, “IMPULS - Industrie 4.0-
Readiness,” Impuls-Stiftung des VDMA, Aachen-Köln; 2015.
[5] Anderl, R.: Leitfaden Industrie 4.0. Orientierungshilfe zur Einführung in
den Mittelstand. Frankfurt am Main: VDMA-Verlag; 2015.
[6] Schumacher, A.; Erol, S.; Sihn, W.: A Maturity Model for Assessing
Industry 4.0 Readiness and Maturity of Manufacturing Enterprises. In:
Nassehi, A.; Newman, S. (Ed.): The Sixth International Conference on
Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual Production (CARV2016).
CIRP (Procedia CIRP, Vol. 52); 2016. p. 161-166.
[7] Schuh, G.; Anderl, R.; Gausemeier, J.; Ten-Hompel, M. ; Wahlster, W.
(ed.): Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index. Die digitale Transformation von
Unternehmen gestalten (Acatech Studie). Ed. by W. Wahlster. Herbert Utz
Verlag. München; 2017.
[8] Hirsch Kreinsen, H.; Weyer, W.: Wandel von Produktionsarbeit –
“Industrie 4.0”. Soziologisches Arbeitspapier Nr. 38. Dortmund; 2014.
[9] Bauernhansel, T.; Krüger, J.; Reinhart, G.; Schuh, G.: WGP-Standpunkt
Industrie 4.0. Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Produktionstechnik WGP
e.V. Darmstadt; 2016.
[10] Spath, D.(Ed.): Produktionsarbeit der Zukunft - Industrie 4.0. [Studie].
Fraunhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation. Stuttgart:
Fraunhofer-Verlag; 2013.
[11] Kagermann, H.; Wahlster, W.; Helbig, J.: Umsetzungsempfehlungen für
das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0. Abschlussbericht des Arbeitskreises
Industrie 4.0. Berlin; 2012.
[12] BITKOM; VDMA; ZVEI: Umsetzungsstrategie Industrie 4.0.
Ergebnisbericht der Plattform Industrie 4.0; 2015.
[13] Rice, A.: The enterprise and its environment, London; 1963.
[14] Block, C.; Freith, S.; Kreggenfeld, N.; Morlock, F.; Prinz, C.; Kreimeier,
D.; Kuhlenkötter, B.: Industrie 4.0 als soziotechnisches Spannungsfeld.
Ganzheitliche Betrachtung von Technik, Organisation und Personal. In:
Zeitung für Wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb (ZWF) 110 (10); 2015. p. 657-
660.
[15] Bauer, W.; Schlund, S.; Marrenbach, D.; Ganschar, O.: Industrie 4.0 –
Volkswirtschaftliches Potenzial für Deutschland. Studie. Eds. .
Bundesverband Informationswirtschaft, Telekommunikation und neue
Medien e.V. (BITKOM) and Fraunhofer Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und
Organisation (IAO). Berlin; 2014.
[16] Meudt, T.; Pohl, M.; Metternich, J.: Die Automatisierungspyramide - Ein
Literaturüberblick. Darmstadt; 2017
[17] Zillmann, M.: Smart Factory – Wie die Digitalisierung Fabriken
verändert. Tranformation von der Werkshalle bis zur
Unternehmensleitung. Ed. Lünendonk GmbH; 2016.
[18] Morlock, F.; Wienbruch, T.; Leineweber, S.; Kreimeier, D.; Kuhlenkötter,
B.: Industrie 4.0 – Transformation für produzierende Unternehmen –
Reifegradbasierte Migration zum Cyber-physischen Produktionssystem.
In: Zeitung für Wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb (ZWF) 111 (5); 2016. p.
306-309.
[19] Leavitt, H.: Applying organizational change in industry: Structural,
technological and humanistic approaches. In: March, J. (Ed): Handbook of
Organizations. Rand McNally, Chigaco, Illinois; 1965.