Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 440–445
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

55th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems

Systematic Analysis of Industrie 4.0 Design Principles
Roland Halla,*, Simon Schumachera, Andreas Bildsteina
a
Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstr. 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 711 970-1733; E-mail address: roland.hall@ipa.fraunhofer.de

Abstract

Lean Production Systems (LPS) are established in industrial production and are typically based on the Toyota Production System
in terms of their structure and elements. The Digital Transformation is influencing LPS, leading to emerging Lean Production
Systems 4.0 (LPS 4.0). A central element of LPS are their design principles, which act as a link between the strategic level
(corporate objectives) and operationally implementable level (methods and tools) in LPS. Part of the influence of Digital
Transformation on LPS is adding new Industrie 4.0 design principles. While various scientific publications deal with the derivation
and categorization of Industrie 4.0 design principles, there is no consensus on which design principles should be included in
contemporary LPS 4.0. This paper describes the first step in addressing this overarching issue by systematically analyzing widely
cited categorizations of Industrie 4.0 design principles. The approach of this paper is based on relating the Industrie 4.0 design
principles to use cases that reflect the operative implementation of Industrie 4.0. This leads to transparency displaying which
Industrie 4.0 design principles represent best the current Industrie 4.0 implementation activities.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the International Programme committee of the 55th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Keywords: Design Principles; Use Cases; Lean Production Systems; Industrie 4.0

1. Introduction Industrie 4.0 application. In this way, it systematically

Lean Production Systems (LPS) are well established in
industrial production. [1] Due to the influence of the digital
transformation, LPS are adapting, raising the question of how
this change affects the structure and elements of LPS. A core
element of the established LPS are its design principles, such
as standardization or the avoidance of waste. [2] On the one
hand, design principles represent the essential characteristics of
company-specific production systems while on the other hand,
they structure the operationally implementable part of the
production system - the methods and tools. Design principles
also exist for the digital transformation of industry, paraphrased
in the German-speaking world by the term Industrie 4.0. They
are used to make the characteristics of Industrie 4.0 more
tangible. [3] This paper addresses the extent to which Industrie
4.0 design principles are reflected in current examples of
approaches the question of which design principles should
complement the classic lean principles in the design of
contemporary LPS 4.0 influenced by Industrie 4.0. For this
purpose, section 2 first refers to related works and outlines the
addressed research gap. Section 3 describes the research
methodology of the study, whose results are described in
section 4. Section 5 makes the limitations of the paper
transparent and section 6 finally provides a conclusion.
2. Related works and research gap
This paper deals with Industrie 4.0 design principles as well
as industrial applications described in form of use cases. In this
section, relevant terminology is defined and important research
contributions are presented. The identified research gap is
outlined at the end of this section.

2212-8271 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the International Programme committee of the 55th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.005

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Roland Hall et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 440–445
Lean Production as a concept is based on the Toyota
Production System. [4,5] LPS are a company-specific set of
strategic goals and principles in combination with operative
methods and tools for the holistic management of production
processes. [1] The general structure of LPS is set up with a
composition of the elements objectives, processes, principles,
methods and tools, while the content of these elements is
company-specific. Nowadays, numerous companies have
developed and customized an individual LPS to their specific
requirements. [1,2]
According to Erlach et al., design principles are the basic
ideas, to which the system design must always be oriented to.
[6] VDI 2870 defines principles as laws overriding other laws.
[2] In other words, principles or design principles are
overarching regularities for structuring methods, tools and
technologies that are similar or linked in terms of content. As
described, principles help to ensure that methods and tools are
used in coherence with strategic objectives in LPS. According
to VDI 2870, the eight design principles of LPS are
standardization, zero defects principle, flow principle, pull
principle, continuous improvement process, employee
orientation and management by objectives, avoidance of waste
and visual management. [2]
Industrie 4.0 is a German-coined and widely approved
vision of a fourth industrial revolution and refers to the smart
networking of machines and processes for industry based on
information and communication technology (ICT). [7–9]
Industrie 4.0 involves the following four stages: digitization,
virtualization, connectedness, and autonomization. [8]
Digitized and virtualized systems of systems lead to new
scenarios of industrial work, i.e. cooperation between humans
and machines within a smart factory. [9–11] As a main
component, cyber-physical systems (CPS) are connected,
digitally assisted, responsive and steadily communicating.
Shop floor organization changes towards smaller, self-directed,
and agile teams. [12] Given these technological and
organizational changes, new Industrie 4.0 design principles
arise.
These Industrie 4.0 design principles are defined and
categorized differently in various scientific publications. A
widely cited categorization is provided by Hermann et al. [3]
They identify interconnection, information transparency,
decentral decisions and technical assistance as Industrie 4.0
design principles. This categorization is used among others in
recent publications of the authors themselves and in [13–15].
Table 1 describes the design principles according to this
categorization.
Table 1: Industrie 4.0 design principles according to [3]
Design principle Description
Interconnection Machines, devices, sensors, and people are
connected over the Internet of Everything (IoE). For
connecting various entities with each other,
communication standards and cyber security are of
great importance. The use of standards allows
modularization in the factory.
Information The fusion of the physical and virtual world enables
transparency a new form of information transparency. A virtual
copy of the physical world is created. Context-
aware information are indispensable. For process-
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
441
critical information, real-time information provision
is of importance.
Decentral The combination of interconnected and
decisions decentralized decision-makers allows to utilize local
with global information at the same time for better
decision-making. The IoE participants perform their
tasks as autonomous as possible.
Technical Due to the increasing complexity of production,
assistance humans need to be supported by assistance systems,
which aggregate and visualize information. With
further advances in robotics, the physical support of
humans is regarded as another aspect of technical
assistance.
Another widely cited categorization of Industrie 4.0 design
principles also originates from Hermann et al. [16] and is used
for example in [17–25]. According to this categorization, the
Industrie 4.0 design principles are interoperability,
virtualization, decentralization, real-time capability, service
orientation and modularity. Table 2 describes the design
principles according to this categorization. Other related works
identify deviating or additional design principles, including
[19,26,27]. However, this paper bases its further investigation
on the Industrie 4.0 design principles, which originate from
Hermann et al. Both categorizations derive from the same
literature review.
Table 2: Industrie 4.0 design principles according to [16]
Design principle Description
Interoperability Interoperability is a very important enabler of
Industrie 4.0. In Industrie 4.0 companies, CPS and
humans are connected over the Internet. Standards
will be a key success factor for communication.
Virtualization Virtualization means that CPS are able to monitor
physical processes. These sensor data are linked to
virtual plant models and simulation models. Thus, a
virtual copy of the physical world is created.
Decentralization Embedded computers enable CPS to make decisions
on their own. Only in cases of failure tasks are
delegated to a higher level.
Real-time For organizational tasks it is necessary that data is
capability collected and analyzed in real time. Thus, the plant
can react to the failure of a machine and reroute
products to another machine.
Service The services of companies, CPS, and humans are
orientation available over the Internet and can be used by other
participants. They can be offered both internally and
across company borders.
Modularity Modular systems are able to flexibly adapt to
changing requirements by replacing or expanding
individual modules. Therefore, modular systems can
be easily adjusted to varying requirements.
A use case can be defined as an exemplary application of a
technology, method or tool. Use cases are implementation-
oriented and provide technical solutions to specific problems.
Use cases can be attributed with contextual information such as
roles, business practices and relevant key performance
indicators. [28]
The approaches of LPS and Industrie 4.0 interact in the
design of contemporary production systems. This interaction is
 442
also strongly addressed in scientific discourse. Divers
publications focus on the fundamental interaction of the
approaches [29,30] or the interaction of single elements of LPS
with elements of Industrie 4.0. Table 3 shows an excerpt of
publications that refer to Lean or Industrie 4.0 design principles
in this context.
The German norm VDI 2870 (2012) describes the general
relationship between Lean principles and Lean methods and
tools. [2] Rosin et al. (2020) discuss the relationship between
the LPS design principles and Industrie 4.0 technologies [18].
Lai et al. (2019) emphasize the influence of Industrie 4.0
technologies on the avoidance of waste, as a fundamental LPS
design principle. [31] Dombrowski et al. (2017) assign
Industrie 4.0 use cases to LPS principles. [32] Ghobakhloo
(2018) characterizes Industrie 4.0 by bringing together
Industrie 4.0 design principles and technologies. [27] Langlotz
and Aurich (2020) combine Industrie 4.0 design principles and
Industrie 4.0 technologies in the structure of an LPS. [33]
Sanders et. al (2017) analyze the relation between Industrie 4.0
design principles and LPS methods and tools. [17]
The research gap addressed by this paper concerns the
relationship between Industrie 4.0 design principles and use
cases. According to Table 3, the authors are not aware of any
scientific publication that systematically analyzes the
interaction of Industrie 4.0 design principles and Industrie 4.0
use cases. Nevertheless, such an analysis appears necessary for
various reasons: First, there is no study available that considers
whether the identified design principles are suitable for
representing and structuring Industrie 4.0 use cases. Second, it
is not transparent which design principles dominate the current
Industrie 4.0 implementation. Third, it is questionable which of
the two categorization of design principles is more suitable for
describing the current Industrie 4.0 implementation activities.
Hence, this research gap is to be addressed in the following.
Table 3: Research gap in comparison to related relevant analyses
design principles
design principles
methods & tools
Industrie 4.0
Approach
LPS
LPS
[2] x x
[18,31] x x
[32] x x
[27,33] x x
[17] x x
This study x x
3. Research methodology
Our research aims to analyze existing Industrie 4.0 design
principles regarding their fit with Industrie 4.0 use cases. The
study assumes that by analyzing Industrie 4.0 use cases, it is
possible to determine which design principles are dominating
the actual Industrie 4.0 implementation. These principles must
therefore be taken into account in order to design contemporary
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Roland Hall et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 440–445
LPS 4.0. The research question is stated as follows: "Which
design principles are represented to which degree by existing
Industrie 4.0 use cases?" The study was performed as a desk
research on basis of industrial use cases according to the
process displayed in Figure 1.
The selection of the Industrie 4.0 design principles
represents the first step of the research process. As shown in
the previous section, two categorizations of Industrie 4.0
design principles are considered, being based on Hermann et
al. and widely cited. Both categorizations represent the input
on the side of the design principles.
 Categorization 1 (C1): interconnection, information
transparency, decentral decisions, technical assistance
 Categorization 2 (C2): interoperability, virtualization,
decentralization, real-time capability, service orientation,
modularity
Step two of the research process focuses on the selection of
a use cases repository. This repository was required to describe
current Industrie 4.0 use cases in sufficient quantity and
quality. Therefore a choice between publicly accessible
repositories such as that of the Plattform Industrie 4.0 [34] or
the Fraunhofer IPA's internal use case database was necessary.
The decision was made in favour of the Fraunhofer IPA
repository. 44 use cases described in detail and high quality
from the areas of production, production planning and control,
quality management, intralogistics, SCM and HRM were
included for further investigation representing the input on the
side of the use cases.
1) Selection and definition Industrie 4.0 design principles as input
2) Selection of a use case repository as input
3) Attribution of input use cases to design principles
4) Analysis of contribution rates and white spots
5) Conclusions with regard to suitability of design principles
technologies
Industrie 4.0
Industrie 4.0
use cases
Figure 1 Research process of this study
In the third step, the use cases were related to the design
principles (see Table 4). For all 44 use cases, it was examined
to which degree the Industrie 4.0 design principles are
represented. As the research question shows, it was assumed a
priori that the Industrie 4.0 design principles affect the use
cases to different degrees. Four types of relationship were
therefore defined for the analysis:
 Design principle is central to the use case and represents
its basic implementation motivation (in Table 4
symbolized by +++)
 Design principle is of great importance for the use case and
takes the role of a use case enabler (in Table 4 symbolized
by ++)
 Design principle is not insignificant for the use case, but is
not of decisive relevance (in Table 4 symbolized by +)
 Design principle and use case are not related to each other
(in Table 4 symbolized by 0)
 Roland Hall et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 440–445 443

Table 4: Analysis of the relationship between design principles and use cases of 44 use cases this design principle is of outstanding
importance. For 6 of 44 use cases the principle is irrelevant.
Interconnection has enabling significance for 36 of 44 use

Decentral decisions
Categorization
cases (82 %). In addition, in 8 of the 44 use cases,
C1 of Interconnection interconnection was of central importance. None of the

transparency
Information
Industrie 4.0
analyzed use cases can be implemented without considering

assistance
Technical
design
this design principle. The design principle of information
principles
transparency also serves as a necessary use case enabler in
Use Case 1 ++ +++ + ++ many cases (26 of 44). However, a significant proportion of the
Use Case 2 ++ ++ + +++ use cases (16 of 44) also centrally target this principle. The
… categorization of the Industrie 4.0 design principles into
Use Case 44 +++ ++ + + interconnection, information transparency, decentral decisions
AND and technical assistance allows that at least one central design
principle can be identified for each use case. The categorization
Real-time capability

Categorization C1 thus seems to be suitable for representing the basic

Service orientation
Decentralization

implementation motivation of the studied use cases.

Interoperability

C2 of
Virtualization

Industrie 4.0 Modularity

Results based on C1
design
principles 50
2 2
Use Case 1 ++ ++ + ++ ++ + 40 6
9
Use Case 2 ++ ++ + + + +
30 26
… 36 21
Use Case 44 +++ ++ + +++ + + 20
33
Since both categorizations (C1 & C2) of the Industrie 4.0 10 16 15
design principles are analyzed, the described investigation was 8 2
0
executed for both categorizations respectively (see Table 4). Interconnection Information Decentral Technical
To realize the fourth step of the research process, the results transparency decisions assistance
from step 3 were analyzed quantitatively regarding Number of +++ Number of ++ Number of + Number of 0
accumulations and gaps. In doing so, C1 and C2 were first
examined separately. The following questions were crucial for
this step of the investigation: Figure 2: Results of use case analysis based on categorization C1
 Which design principles are of greatest and least
importance for the use cases considered? (Analysis of the 4.2 Results for categorization C2
"+++" relationships) According to this categorization, the most important design
 Are there design principles that are essential as enablers principle of the examined use cases is virtualization. This
for all or most use cases? (Analysis of the "++" design principle is of central relevance for 22 of the 44 (50 %)
relationships) use cases considered. Decentralization was rated least often as
 Is the basic implementation motivation of each use case central. It was the basic implementation motivation for only 2
covered by a design principle? (Analysis of the use cases of 44 use cases. The principle of interoperability is important
regarding "+++" relationships) for all the analyzed use cases. It is the enabling principle for 36
of 44 use cases. Furthermore, in 8 of the 44 use cases, the
In step five of the research process, the two categorizations design principle was also of central importance. None of the
and their relationship to the studied use cases were compared use cases can be implemented without taking this design
and considered as a whole. The results of steps four and five principle into account. Real-time capability was evaluated as a
are discussed in the following section. central design principle for 8 of 44 use cases. For 22 additional
use cases, the design principle was also highly relevant as an
enabler. Service orientation is of central importance for 6 of 44
4. Results
use cases. 24 times, the design principle was rated as possibly,
but not significantly important for the use case. In 3 use cases,
As outlined previously, the results are first described
the design principle is irrelevant. This rather low significance
separately for C1 and C2 and then considered as a whole. The of service orientation may also be caused by the selection of
results of the evaluation as well as short descriptions of the the use cases, which relate more to processes of value creation
analyzed use cases are available via the link in the attachment. and less to the service offering. The design principle of
4.1 Results for categorization C1 modularity is only central to 3 use cases. It thus appears to be
of minor importance in the examined use case data basis. Our
Technical assistance is the most important design principle analysis based on the categorization C2 results in 9 use cases
of the analyzed use cases. This design principle was evaluated for which no central design principle can be identified.
as central for 33 of 44 use cases (75 %). The principle of
Decentral decisions was rated least often as central. For only 2

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 444 Roland Hall et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 440–445
Results based on C2
45 3 2 3 repository suggests that the design principles play a
40 6 5
35 12
30 19
25 36 21 24
20 22
15
10 22 15 11
5 8 8 6
0 2
Number of +++ Number of ++ Number of + Number of 0
Figure 3: Results of use case analysis based on categorization C2
4.3 Comparison of categorizations C1 and C2
The comparison of the results shows that the 9 use cases
without identification of central design principle in
categorization C2 are all represented by the principle of
technical assistance in categorization C1. The lack of technical
assistance is therefore not compensated by the design
principles interoperability, virtualization, decentralization,
real-time capability, service orientation and modularity. A
comparison of the results also shows that the design principles
of interconnection and interoperability as well as decentral
decisions and decentralization were evaluated in the same way.
However, this is not surprising given the largely identical
description of these design principles. Furthermore, the design
principles of information transparency and virtualization have
thematic similarities.
Both categorizations of the Industrie 4.0 design principles
have advantages and disadvantages. The use of the four design
principles interconnection, information transparency, decentral
decisions and technical assistance has proven to be
advantageous in order to be able to assign at least one central
design principle to each use case. In particular, the principle of
technical assistance is of central importance for many use
cases. A critical aspect of the categorization C1 is that the
principle of technical assistance is abstract and includes both
informational and physical assistance. It can be concluded that
the design principle of technical assistance is a catch-all for
diverse use cases. In addition, the categorization C1 assigns a
rather subordinate relevance to the design principle of real-time
capability. According to its description, it is part of the design
principle of information transparency. However, the results of
this paper show that real-time capability is of central
importance for 8 of 44 use cases and of great importance for 22
other use cases. Based on these results, real-time capability
seems to be underrepresented in the categorization C1.
In contrast, the categorization C2 has the advantage of
representing real-time capability as an independent design
principle. The main disadvantage of the categorization C2 is
the absence of the design principle of technical assistance. As
a consequence, no central design principle could be assigned to
9 use cases. Whether the consideration of the design principles
service orientation and modularity is to be evaluated as an
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
advantage or disadvantage cannot be told conclusively at this
point. Even if the examination of the selected use case
subordinate role. Future research will have to show whether
23 this impression remains valid after analyzing further use cases.
5. Limitations
13
3
Several limitations have to be taken into account with regard
to this research. First, the presented study is dependent on the
carefully chosen research process presented in section 3. For
instance, the design principle definitions directly influence the
results of use case assignment. However, the authors have
identified established and most relevant references for Industrie
4.0 design principles. Second, there are open access and
restricted use case inputs. For this study, the authors had access
to a restricted database with Industrie 4.0 use cases from
Fraunhofer, which were available in the most uniform and
standardized form and thus serve as a high-quality input for
analysis. Other open source use cases from online databases
would have to be pre-processed in order to be on the same
informational level of use case description. Despite the efforts
for standardization, the use of different inputs helps to increase
the overall quality of the analysis.
6. Conclusions
This paper shows that the analysis of use cases allows a
differentiated, practice-oriented analysis of Industrie 4.0 design
principles. The underlying assumption that use cases and
design principles can be linked is confirmed. The design
principles of both categorizations C1 and C2 can be found in
the analyzed use cases. This emphasizes the fundamental
suitability of the design principles for representing the Industrie
4.0 implementation activities. Both categorizations C1 and C2
each have advantages: C1 takes the design principle of
technical assistance into account, which is of decisive
importance. C2 takes the design principle of real-time
capability prominently into account and allows a differentiated
assignment to the use cases due to a higher number of design
principles. In addition, it was proven that some design
principles have an enabling function. They are a necessary
precondition for all or most use cases and consequently also for
the residual design principles. This relationship is reflected
especially in the categorization C1. Interconnection and
information transparency often serve as use case enablers. It
can also be observed that no use case was assigned to one single
design principle. 1:1 relationships between design principles
and use cases were not identified with the research design used.
As the limitations of this paper indicate, future research
should broaden the scope to a more extensive use cases sample.
The aim of this study was to analyze whether the less strongly
addressed design principles (C1: decentralized decisions; C2:
decentralization, service orientation, modularity) are in fact
less relevant for the current Industrie 4.0 implementation, or
were simply underrepresented in the Fraunhofer IPA's use case
repository. In addition, it is necessary to clarify how to deal
with the different categorizations of the design principles. Are
the most relevant design principles of both categorizations
 Roland Hall et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 440–445
brought together? Does one categorization prove to be clearly
advantageous? Further investigations should also consider
whether the design principles of the categorizations C1 and C2
are sufficient to capture Industrie 4.0 implementation activities.
Moreover, the effect of different influencing variables (e.g.
considered industry, digital maturity level or business unit) on
the relevance of the design principles should not be neglected
in future research. Clarification of these open issues finally
leads to a set of systematically reviewed Industrie 4.0 design
principles, which can be integrated in the design of
contemporary LPS 4.0. Despite the limitations of this study, it
can be concluded that interconnection/ interoperability,
information transparency/ virtualization, technical assistance
and real-time capability should be added to the existing design
principles of LPS due to their fundamental significance for the
implementation of Industrie 4.0.
CRediT author statement
Roland Hall: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Visualization, Writing - Original Draft.
Simon Schumacher: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Writing - Review & Editing.
Andreas Bildstein: Methodology, Supervision.
Acknowledgements
The Future Work Lab is funded by the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and implemented
by the Project Management Agency Karlsruhe (PTKA).
Attachment
The results of the evaluation and short descriptions of the
analyzed use cases can be accessed via this link:
https://s.fhg.de/Attachment-CMS-Hall
References
[1] Dombrowski U, Mielke T (2015) Einleitung und historische
Entwicklung. in Dombrowski U, Mielke T, (Eds.). Ganzheitliche
Produktionssysteme: Aktueller Stand und zukünftige Entwicklungen.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–24.
[2] Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) Ganzheitliche Produktionssysteme |
Lean production systems(VDI2870 - Blatt1). Beuth Verlag, Berlin.
[3] Hermann M, Pentek T, Otto B (2016) Design Principles for Industrie 4.0
Scenarios. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS). IEEE, pp. 3928–3937.
[4] Ōno T (1988) Toyota production system. Productivity Press, New York.
[5] Womack JP, Jones DT (2003) Lean thinking. Free Press, New York.
[6] Erlach K, Böhm M, Hartleif S, Leipoldt C, Ungern-Sternberg R (2020)
Gestaltungsrichtlinien in den Technikwissenschaften. Zeitschrift für
wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb 115(1-2):77–81.
[7] Bauernhansl T (2017) Die Vierte Industrielle Revolution – Der Weg in
ein wertschaffendes Produktionsparadigma. in Vogel-Heuser B,
Bauernhansl T, Hompel M ten, (Eds.). Handbuch Industrie 4.0 Bd.4.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–31.
[8] Bauernhansl T (February 28th, 2019) Cognitive Production Systems -
Technologies and Business Impacts, Stuttgart.
[9] Bauer D, Schumacher S, Gust A, Seidelmann J, Bauernhansl T (2019)
Characterization of Autonomous Production by a Stage Model.
Procedia CIRP 81:192–7.
[10] Lucke D (2013) Smart Factory. in Westkämper E, Spath D,
Constantinescu C, Lentes J, (Eds.). Digitale Produktion. Springer Berlin
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
445
Heidelberg. Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 251–269.
[11] Bracht U, Geckler D, Wenzel S (2018) Digitale Fabrik. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[12] Bauernhansl T (2015) Smart Factory. in Zollondz H-D, (Ed.). Lexikon
Qualitätsmanagement: Handbuch des Modernen Managements auf
Basis des Qualitätsmanagements. De Gruyter Oldenbourg, pp. 1082–
1085.
[13] Hermann M, Bücker I, Otto B (2020) Industrie 4.0 process
transformation: findings from a case study in automotive logistics.
JMTM 31(5):935–53.
[14] Boccella AR, Centobelli P, Cerchione R, Murino T, Riedel R (2020)
Evaluating Centralized and Heterarchical Control of Smart
Manufacturing Systems in the Era of Industry 4.0. Applied Sciences
10(3):755.
[15] Axelsson J, Fröberg J, Eriksson P (2019) Architecting systems‐of‐
systems and their constituents: A case study applying Industry 4.0 in the
construction domain. Systems Engineering 22(6):455–70.
[16] Hermann M, Pentek T, Otto B (2015) Design Principles for Industrie
4.0 Scenarios: A Literature Review.
[17] Sanders A, K. Subramanian KR, Redlich T, Wulfsberg JP (2017)
Industry 4.0 and Lean Management – Synergy or Contradiction? in
Lödding H, Riedel R, Thoben K-D, Cieminski G von, Kiritsis D, (Eds.).
Advances in Production Management Systems. The Path to Intelligent,
Collaborative and Sustainable Manufacturing. Springer International
Publishing. Cham, pp. 341–349.
[18] Rosin F, Forget P, Lamouri S, Pellerin R (2020) Impacts of Industry 4.0
technologies on Lean principles. International Journal of Production
Research 58(6):1644–61.
[19] Habib MK, Chimsom C Industry 4.0: Sustainability and Design
Principles. 2019 20th International Conference on Research and
Education in Mechatronics (REM). IEEE, pp. 1–8.
[20] Dikhanbayeva D, Shaikholla S, Suleiman Z, Turkyilmaz A (2020)
Assessment of Industry 4.0 Maturity Models by Design Principles.
Sustainability 12(23):9927.
[21] Mittal S, Khan MA, Romero D, Wuest T (2019) Smart manufacturing:
Characteristics, technologies and enabling factors. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture 233(5):1342–61.
[22] Valamede LS, Santos Akkari AC Lean Manufacturing and Industry 4.0:
A Holistic Integration Perspective in the Industrial Context. 2020 9th
International Conference on Industrial Technology and Management
(ICITM). IEEE, pp. 63–68.
[23] Mrugalska B, Wyrwicka MK (2017) Towards Lean Production in
Industry 4.0. Procedia Engineering 182:466–73.
[24] Uriarte AG, Ng AH, Moris MU (2018) Supporting the lean journey with
simulation and optimization in the context of Industry 4.0. Procedia
Manufacturing 25:586–93.
[25] Butt J (2020) A Strategic Roadmap for the Manufacturing Industry to
Implement Industry 4.0. Designs 4(2):0–30.
[26] Qin J, Liu Y, Grosvenor R (2016) A Categorical Framework of
Manufacturing for Industry 4.0 and Beyond. Procedia CIRP 52:173–8.
[27] Ghobakhloo M (2018) The future of manufacturing industry: a strategic
roadmap toward Industry 4.0. JMTM 29(6):910–36.
[28] DIN, DKE (2020) Deutsche Normungsroadmap Industrie 4.0: Version
4, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main.
[29] Buer S-V, Strandhagen JO, Chan FTS (2018) The link between Industry
4.0 and lean manufacturing: mapping current research and establishing a
research agenda. International Journal of Production Research
56(8):2924–40.
[30] Schumacher S, Hall R, Rapp S, Bildstein A (2021) Ganzheitliche
Produktionssysteme 4.0: Anforderungen an die Gestaltung von
Methoden und Werkzeugen in Ganzheitlichen Produktionssystemen.
[31] Lai NYG, Wong KH, Halim D, Lu J (2019) Industry 4.0 Enhanced Lean
Manufacturing. 2019 8th International Conference on Industrial
Technology and Management (ICITM). IEEE, pp. 206–211.
[32] Dombrowski U, Richter T, Krenkel P (2017) Interdependencies of
Industrie 4.0 & Lean Production Systems: A Use Cases Analysis.
Procedia Manufacturing 11:1061–8.
[33] Langlotz P, Aurich JC (2021) Causal and temporal relationships within
the combination of Lean Production Systems and Industry 4.0. Procedia
CIRP 96:236–41.
[34] Plattform Industrie 4.0. Landkarte "Anwendungsbeispiele Industrie 4.0".
https://www.plattform-
40.de/IP/Navigation/Karte/SiteGlobals/Forms/Formulare/karte-
anwendungsbeispiele-formular.html (accessed on 21.12.2021)