Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:53:31.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEVELOPMENT OF A POTENTIAL MODEL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT AND INTRODUCTION OF INDUSTRY 4.0 TECHNOLOGIES

Part of: Design Organisation and Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

D. Schneider ,
T. Huth ,
T. Vietor ,
P. Schumacher ,
C. Weckenborg  and
T. Spengler
D. Schneider*
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
T. Huth
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
T. Vietor
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
P. Schumacher
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
C. Weckenborg
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
T. Spengler
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
*
*da.schneider@tu-braunschweig.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

As digitalisation progresses, the demands placed on companies are increasing at all stages of the product generation process. In order to address these requirements and maintain economic strength, companies must implement innovative and intelligent technologies. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are confronted with various obstacles, the overcoming of which is addressed by the “Potential Model” presented in this publication.

Keywords

design methodologyevaluationtechnology development
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 707 - 716
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Abele, E. and Reinhart, G. (2011), Zukunft der Produktion: Herausforderungen, Forschungsfelder, Chancen, Carl Hanser Fachbuchverlag, s.l.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdmann, M.-K. (2013), Supply chain performance measurement: Operative und strategische Management- und Controllingansätze, 3rd ed., EUL Verlag, Köln.Google Scholar
Faller, C. and Feldmüller, D. (2015), “Industry 4.0 Learning Factory for regional SMEs”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 32, pp. 88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gausemeier, J. et al. (2017), Mit Industrie 4.0 zum Unternehmenserfolg - Integrative Planung von Geschäftsmodellen und Wertschöpfungssystemen, Heinz Nixdorf Institut, Paderborn.Google Scholar
Jong, T.D. and Ferguson-Hessler, M.G.M. (1996), “Types and qualities of knowledge”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagermann, H. et al. (2016), Industrie 4.0 in a Global Context: Strategies for Cooperating with International Partners (acatech STUDY), Herbert Utz Verlag, Munich.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), “Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy”, California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, V. et al. (2014), Industrie 4.0 - Chancen und Herausforderungen der vierten industriellen Revolution, Fachverlag Moderne Wirtschaft, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Lanza, G. et al. (2016), “Befähigungs- und Einführungsstrategien für Industrie 4.0”, ZWF Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb, Vol. 111 No. 1-2, pp. 76–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. and Seo, K.-K. (2016), “A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for a Cloud Service Selection Problem Using BSC, Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP”, Wireless Personal Communications, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lembeck, H. et al. (2019), Evaluation methodology for the process integration of industry 4.0 solutions into Design, Fraunhofer IAO, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Lu, M.-T. et al. (2018), “A hybrid MCDM and sustainability-balanced scorecard model to establish sustainable performance evaluation for international airports”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 71, pp. 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinsey, . (2016), “Industry 4.0 at McKinsey's model factories”, available at: http://sf-eu.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/mckinsey-2016-industry-4.0-at-mckinseys-model-factories-en.pdf (accessed 14 November 2019).Google Scholar
Nowack, M.L. (1997), Design guideline support for manufacturability, Selwyn College, Cambride.Google Scholar
Rauch, E., Dallasega, P. and Matt, D.T. (2016), “The Way from Lean Product Development (LPD) to Smart Product Development (SPD)”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 50, pp. 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, A.C. and Romero, F. (2017), “A review of the meanings and the implications of the Industry 4.0 concept”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 13, pp. 1206–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reik, M.P. et al. (2006), “Design for Changeover (DFC)”, In: Blecker, T. and Friedrich, G. (Eds.), Mass Customization: Challenges and Solutions, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Vol. 87, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudtsch, V. (2016), Methodik zur Bewertung von Produktionssystemen in der frühen Entwicklungsphase, Dissertation, Dissertation, Universität Paderborn, Paderborn.Google Scholar
Şahin, T. et al. (2018), “How to Foster Innovation? Findings and Hypotheses for Collaborations between Research and Industry”, Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, May, 21-24, 2018, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Croatia; The Design Society, Glasgow, UK, pp. 1945–1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuh, G. et al. (2017), Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index. Managing the Digital Transformation of Companies (acatech STUDY), Herbert Utz Verlag, Munich.Google Scholar
Terstegen, S. et al. (2019), “Vergleichsstudie über Vorgehensmodelle zur Einführung und Umsetzung von Digitalisierungs- maßnahmen in der produzierenden Industrie”, In: GfA, (Ed.), Frühjahrskongress der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaften - Arbeit interdisziplinär analysieren – bewerten – gestalten, Vol. 65, Dortmund.Google Scholar
Thielsch, M.T., Lenzner, T. and Melles, T. (2012), “Wie gestalte ich gute Items und Interviewfragen?”, In: Praxis der Wirtschaftspsychologie: Themen und Fallbeispiele für Studium und Anwendung, Vol. 2, Monsenstein u. Vannerdat, Münster, pp. 221–240.Google Scholar
VDMA - Forum Industrie 4.0 (2019), Guideline Industrie 4.0 - Guiding principles for the implementation ofIndustrie 4.0 in small and medium sized businesses, VDMA Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Wichmann, R.L., Eisenbart, B. and Gericke, K. (2019), “The Direction of Industry: A Literature Review on Industry 4.0”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2129–2138.Google Scholar