Industry 4.0 considers complex interrelated IoT-based technologies for the provision of digital solutions. Such a complexity demands a vast set of capabilities that are hard to be found in a single ...technology provider, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Innovation ecosystems allow SMEs to integrate resources and cocreate Industry 4.0 solutions. We aim to understand how such ecosystems can consolidate and evolve, and how value is cocreated within them. We adopt a social exchange perspective to consider the relationships in the ecosystem across six structural dimensions and three lifecycle stages. We analyze eleven years of an ecosystem's evolution using a technology mapping of 87 companies, 37 interviews with stakeholders, and a 2.5-year follow-up of a testbed project conducted by 8 companies. Our final framework shows that the ecosystem's mission shifted from accessing innovation funds to Industry 4.0 solution cocreation and, then, to smart business solutions cocreation. As trust and commitment grew, the power structure shifted from the centrality of business association toward a mechanism of neutral coordination of complex projects involving the university and business associations and, lastly, to a platform-driven ecosystem structure, where key technologies emerged as drivers of relationships among the companies and value cocreation. We also show the changes of reciprocity between actors, as well as in value exchange and expected rewards from the social exchange. Managers can learn how to establish technology development strategies in Industry 4.0 ecosystems, while policymakers can learn how to organize the evolution of such ecosystems.
Display omitted
•We consider Industry 4.0 as a complex system of interrelated technologies.•Innovation ecosystems are an alternative to supply chain in the Industry 4.0 context.•Technology providers can cocreate value by integrating resources in the ecosystem.•We use the social exchange theory and ecosystem's structure as theoretical lenses.•The framework shows actors' role as the ecosystem evolves through 3 lifecycle stages.
Servitization and Industry 4.0 are considered two of the most recent trends transforming industrial companies. Servitization is mainly focused on adding value to the customer (demand-pull) while ...Industry 4.0 is frequently related to adding value to manufacturing process (technology-push). Although some scholars address them as complementary concepts, the literature lacks evidences about what are the interfaces and connection between the two trends. Thus, we aim to develop a conceptual framework that connects Servitization and Industry 4.0 concepts from a business model innovation (BMI) perspective. Our framework is based on three Servitization levels (i.e. smoothing, adapting and substituting) and three levels of digitization (i.e. low, moderate and high levels). We show that matching these levels results in nine possible configurations classified in manual, digital and industry 4.0-related services, which can focus on smoothing, adapting or substituting services. We use reported cases from the literature to support and illustrate these configurations. We also discuss different levels of complexity for the implementation of these configurations. The study hence provides a foundation for the growing research on the interface between Servitization and Industry 4.0.
•We explore the integration of servitization types and digitization levels.•The highest level of digitization considers the Industry 4.0-related technologies.•Servitization types can be offered in three levels: manual, digital and industry 4.0.•Industry 4.0-related services add value for customers and for internal processes.
•We analyze how the Industry 4.0 literature has evolved during its 10 years.•We perform a systematic machine learning-based literature review of 4,973 papers.•We analyze 4 Smarts: S. Manufact., ...S.Working, S.Supply Chains and S.Product-Services.•We show the growth of these four smart dimensions and the interrelationships.•Future opportunities are highlighted for journals and specific fields of research.
The Industry 4.0 literature has exponentially grown in the past decade. We aim to understand how this literature has evolved and propose future research opportunities. We focus on four smart dimensions of Industry 4.0: Smart Manufacturing, Smart Products and Services, Smart Supply Chain, and Smart Working. We perform a machine learning-based systematic literature review. Our analysis included 4,973 papers published from 2011 to 2020. We conducted a chronological network analysis considering the growth of these four dimensions and the connections between them. We also analyzed keywords and the main journals publishing on these four smart dimensions. We show that the literature has mainly been devoted to the study of Smart Manufacturing, although attention to the other smart dimensions has been growing in recent years. Smart Working is the less explored dimension, with many opportunities for future research. We show that research opportunities are concentrated in the interfaces between the different smart dimensions. Our findings support the vision of Industry 4.0 as a concept transcending the Smart Manufacturing field, thus creating opportunities for synergies with other related fields. Scholars can use our findings to understand the orientation of journals and gaps that can be fulfilled by future research.
•15 technologies that make direct or indirect contributions to workers’ activities.•We show where these technologies contribute to eight different manufacturing activities.•We show how these ...technologies create positive and negative impacts on workers.•Technologies are related to the worker capabilities workers’ occupational categories.
Prior studies have investigated the relationship between Industry 4.0 technologies and work. This paper acknowledges the contributions of such studies and builds on their perspective to broaden the understanding of the contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies to specific worker capabilities and manufacturing activities. The aim is to build a conceptual framework to consolidate a common view on this growing yet fragmented issue by integrating a wide range of findings from the literature. The study adopts a systematic literature review approach to systematize such knowledge in a singular and consolidated perspective on Industry 4.0 technologies and work. The study analyzes 80 papers in this field and investigates how different Industry 4.0 technologies are related to workers’ manufacturing activities. Eight main manufacturing activities were considered to frame the analysis: assembly, maintenance, training, quality control, movement, machine operation, product and process design, and production planning and control. Eight worker capabilities that Industry 4.0 technologies can enhance were also considered: super-strength capability, augmented capability, virtual capability, healthy capability, smart capability, collaborative, social capability, analytical capability. Based on these 80 papers, this paper conceptualizes Smart Working-related technologies for Operators 4.0 and shows their benefits and limitations as described in the literature. The study shows how these manufacturing activities and worker capabilities can be supported by Industry 4.0 technologies, which is useful for future research and the design of operational processes in the Industry 4.0 context.
PurposeAs the level of implementation of Industry 4.0 increases, misalignments between adopted technologies and organizational factors may result in benefits below expected. This paper aims to ...analyze how organizational factors can contribute to a higher level of adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies. The paper uses a sociotechnical perspective lens to achieve this aim.Design/methodology/approachUsing a sample of 231 manufacturing companies in Denmark, a leading country in Industry 4.0 readiness, the paper analyzes through cluster analysis and logistic regression whether the development of four sociotechnical dimensions – that is, Social, Technical, Work Organization and Environmental factors – in these companies can benefit the achievement of higher levels of Industry 4.0 technology adoption.FindingsThe results show that companies focused on the development of sociotechnical aspects generally present higher Industry 4.0 adoption levels. However, some sociotechnical factors are less supportive than others.Originality/valueBased on these results, practitioners can plan the adoption of advanced technologies, using a systemic organizational view. This study provides evidence on a growing field with few empirical studies available. The paper contributes by providing an analysis of a leading country in Industry 4.0 implementation, presenting a systemic view on technology adoption in the Industry 4.0 context.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to study service innovation in product companies (servitization) by considering the relationship (moderation) between product companies and service suppliers.
...Design/methodology/approach
Using a relational view of the firm, the authors propose that there are three main business dimensions that product companies have to manage in servitization and that the support of service suppliers can moderate the effects of these dimensions on the benefits obtained from the product–service system (PSS) delivered. To test these hypotheses, the authors perform a cross-sectional quantitative survey in 104 Brazilian and Italian product companies.
Findings
The findings show that the three business dimensions are important for servitization while there is a trade-off decision regarding service suppliers’ support since suppliers act differently depending on the PSS orientation (product- or service-oriented).
Research limitations/implications
The work is limited to the analysis of what should change in a company during servitization and the impact of supplier’s support. Further research is needed to complement this study by analyzing the process and context of the organizational change.
Practical implications
The research contributes an understanding about how the benefits practitioners can obtain from servitization are strongly influenced by the support of service suppliers and how this influence depends on the PSS orientation of the product company.
Originality/value
This is one of the first quantitative studies to provide evidence of how service suppliers’ involvement affects different servitization business dimensions and the obtained benefits for both product- and service-oriented outputs.
The implementation of Industry 4.0 is usually built around core technologies that integrate different complementary hardware and software to coordinate activities within and across the company's ...borders. These technologies can operate as platforms, becoming the base of technology integration in the digital transformation journey. However, the specialized literature has not yet addressed Industry 4.0 technologies from a system view by considering the types of platforms involved. Rather, most Industry 4.0 technologies are considered singular entities of digital transformation. Thus, we aim to define which and how Industry 4.0 technologies can operate as platforms. We propose four types of platforms that support Industry 4.0 features: (i) Networked Manufacturing Operations platforms; (ii) Vertical Integration platforms; (iii) End-to-End Engineering platforms; (vi) Horizontal Integration platforms. We adopt a Boundary-Spanning (BS) perspective to analyze technologies as Industry 4.0 platforms using four BS activities: information collection and processing, external representation; task coordination; and knowledge transformation. We employ a multiple-case approach by scrutinizing 40 cases and selecting seven in which Industry 4.0 technologies are used as platforms. Although only the internet of things and cloud-based systems are conceived as technology platforms in practice, we show that Industry 4.0 can embrace other technologies as platforms that contribute to building cyber-physical systems. We suggest that some of these technologies can operate either as stand-alone or platforms, depending on how their use is designed in the digital transformation process for Industry 4.0 implementation. We provide a framework explaining platform layering as a value chain for these technologies.
•Technologies-as-platforms in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.•Four Industry 4.0 platforms configurations are proposed.•Platforms as boundary objects to connect technologies as add-ons.•Technologies operate as platforms when they have BS activities to connect add-ons.
•We study contextual characteristics of an SMEs ecosystem to develop Smart Products.•Complementary technological capabilities are necessary for Smart Products offering.•We used semi-structured ...interviews with 37 stakeholders of the ecosystem.•We describe characteristics of the ecosystem configuration to offer Smart Products.
Technological innovations are increasing the opportunities to develop technically and economically feasible Smart Products. However, the development of Smart Products requires knowledge and capabilities that single companies usually do not possess, thus creating new opportunities for cooperation through the establishment of innovation ecosystems focused on Smart Products. Hence, this study aims at understanding possible configurations for these ecosystems by considering the required characteristics they should display to allow the development of Smart Products from their early stages. We conducted a case study in an electro-electronic and automation industrial cluster of 120 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), based on 37 interviews with key participants in the ecosystem: 15 SMEs executives, 8 academics, 2 R&D center representatives, 8 large manufacturing customers, 3 business associations and 1 state government representative. As a result, we developed a conceptual framework that presents the required characteristics of an innovation ecosystem to offer Smart Products, and discloses the relationships among these characteristics.
Display omitted
•We study the effect of the triple helix actors for renewable energy systems (RES)•We study 727 mid-sized and large municipalities from all regions in Germany.•Each of the TH actors provides ...different contributions to renewable energy policies.•The government and the private sector contributed for all innovation policies for RES.•Universities have a specific contribution only for knowledge generation at the municipal level.
Some countries have chosen to focus on bottom-up initiatives to enhance the development of renewable energy systems (RES), using the local level (municipalities) as a pillar in this development. Municipalities need to expand their innovation policies to support such transition toward renewable energies. The triple helix (TH) model, based on university, industry, and government, can play an important role in supporting and establishing local policies for RES. We analyze the contribution by the TH actors to the development of three innovation policy criteria for RES development: Creation of cooperative systems, generation and transfer of knowledge, and development of municipal locational factors. Our results are based on a quantitative survey of 727 mid-sized and large municipalities from all regions in Germany. We provide empirical evidence of the relevance of the TH model to support these policy criteria. We also show that rather than treating the TH model as a single effect on RES development, each of the TH actors provides different contributions to RES policies. The government and the private sector have an important role in all three policy criteria. At the same time, we only found a contribution by universities to knowledge generation and transfer, but not to the two other criteria. Thus, in a developed context, the integration of government and private companies is a driving factor to create innovation conditions for RES development, while universities concentrate on creating structural knowledge for innovation in the RES context.
Purpose
The provision of Industry 4.0 solutions demands a vast range of technology domains. To provide these solutions, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) may need the support of different ...supply chain actors through an inbound open innovation strategy. The authors study the contribution of four types of supply chain actors for inbound open innovation: suppliers, competitors with complementary technologies, R&D centers and customers. The authors analyze how these four actors moderate the effect of integrated Industry 4.0 solutions on three main competitive strategies: cost, focalization and differentiation.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors conducted a survey on 77 SMEs from the automation sector, using OLS regression with moderating effects. They considered the integration of 15 technologies and 7 classic automation activities in the provision of Industry 4.0 solutions. The authors also studied three competitive outputs – technology cost reduction (cost), customer loyalty (focalization) and technology innovation (differentiation) – as well as four supply chain actors (moderators).
Findings
Expanding the provision of Industry 4.0 technologies increases customer loyalty and technology innovation. Collaboration with competitors (complementary technologies) leverage these results and reduce technology costs. Integration between customers and R&D centers elevates costs but R&D centers can foster long-run innovation.
Originality/value
This study is the first to empirically investigate inbound open innovation in the supply chain for technology development in the context of Industry 4.0. The authors discuss how these actors contribute to four inbound open innovation activities: technology scouting; horizontal technology collaboration; vertical technology collaboration; and technology sourcing.
PDF
