Next Article in Journal
Reinforcement Learning for Collaborative Robots Pick-and-Place Applications: A Case Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Symbiotic Evolution of Digital Twin Systems and Dataspaces
Previous Article in Journal
Engineering Emergence: A Survey on Control in the World of Complex Networks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Digital Twin of a Flexible Manufacturing System for Solutions Preparation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Towards the Development of a Digital Twin for a Sustainable Mass Customization 4.0 Environment: A Literature Review of Relevant Concepts

by
César Martínez-Olvera
School of Engineering, CETYS University, Mexicali 21259, Mexico
Automation 2022, 3(1), 197-222; https://doi.org/10.3390/automation3010010
Submission received: 7 January 2022 / Revised: 22 February 2022 / Accepted: 9 March 2022 / Published: 16 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Twins, Sensing Technologies and Automation in Industry 4.0)

Abstract

:
Digital Twins (DTs) are one of the disruptive technologies associated with the Industry 4.0 concept. A DT connects the physical manufacturing system with the digital cyberspace, via the synchronization of the simulation (i.e., physical configurations) and data models (i.e., product, process, and resource models) of the manufacturing system. This synchronization of both worlds—the physical and digital—allows one to address the issue of manufacturing customized products. This challenge of mass customization (1) puts forward the goal of achieving the highest level of customer satisfaction, and (2) creates the need for the optimization of the complete value creation process. Within an Industry 4.0 context, the latter is translated as the interlinking of production resources and systems, via a DT, as it is in the physical world where the actual value-creation process takes place. The success of an Industry 4.0 mass customization environment (or mass customization 4.0), depends on its degree/level of sustainability. For these reasons, the present paper presents a review of relevant concepts related to the role of DTs in the achievement of a mass customization 4.0 environment, plus some proposals of how to address the identified research challenges. A future research agenda is proposed at the end of the paper.

1. Introduction

In today’s global competitive market, manufacturing companies are facing the challenge of moving from mass-production to mass customization [1] where meeting individual customer expectations and achieving the highest level of customer satisfaction requires one to rapidly deploy businesses interactions [2]. This presents companies with a series of business challenges, such as manufacturing a high variety of high quality, high performance, low cost, smart, highly customized/individualized products [3]. Being part of a mass customization market implies giving the customer the opportunity to be part of the value creation process [4] through the design and definition of their own individual products and/or services [5] by combining functions and components [6] and producing them in small lot sizes, ideally, a batch size of one [7,8] with quick delivery requirements [9,10] and without paying a high price premium, that is, maintaining the economic conditions of mass production [11,12].
The challenge of mass customization puts forward a value proposition of achieving the highest level of customer satisfaction [4], which creates the need for the optimization of the complete value creation process [13]. This in turn requires grouping together different value creation functions [14,15,16] and the development of new value creation mechanisms [17]. Now, in order to manage this whole value-chain (in an agile and responsive manner), virtual and physical structures are needed [18], and these must be supported by the intensive use of automation, computer systems and software [19]. These issues can be related directly to the Industry 4.0 concept, a very popular initiative among manufacturing companies [20], as manufacturing systems are forced towards an increased level of adaptability and flexibility in order to reduce the time-to-market [1].

1.1. Industry 4.0 and Mass Customization

Industry 4.0 combines technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data, and cyber-physical systems (CPS), Digital Twin (DT), etc., in order to integrate the industrial value creation process chains [21,22] via the real time availability/sharing of relevant information between humas and machines [23,24,25], something that has big implications for sustainability [26]. More specifically, the main tasks of these Industry 4.0 core technologies are digitization of data, analysis, and knowledge extraction [27], that can be used:
  • To enforce automation flexibility [28];
  • To increase the level of manufacturing efficiency [29], flexibility [30], and competitiveness/productivity [31];
  • To integrate all the value-adding chain [31].
Now, a great variety of studies show that the Industry 4.0 concept has the potential for meeting affordable/economic mass customization [8,9], as there is a need to use reconfigurable, adaptive, and smart manufacturing, evolving-factories [32]. According to [20], Industry 4.0 is regarded to be the response to the mass customization challenges, as it requires the use of innovative technological production approaches [33], while [34] states that one of the goals of Industry 4.0, when implemented to address the challenges of a mass customization market, is to successfully achieve a high level of sustainability. This supports the idea that the implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept should take the needs of mass customization into account [35]. Within this general context, the optimization of the value creation process chain (understood as the rapid service-oriented response to the mass customization market demands/requirements), needs to be addressed through the use of fully automated and digitalized processes [36], while at the same time considering the environmental and social impacts that guarantee durable competitiveness [37]. This in turn imposes some challenges:
  • The need for the development of entirely new business models [38] and their associated business processes. According to [39], a business model focuses on the “what” side of value creation, while a business process model focuses on the “how” side of value creation. As customers are integrated into the value creation process by defining and configuring individual solutions a tool is needed to accomplish this [40]. In the age of Industry 4.0, this refers to:
    • A real-time, up-to-date information flow model, that allows the elimination of business process delays [41], through the rapid identification of customer needs and the simplification of the customization process [42];
    • The digital networking of production processes and resources [43,44], to systematically record/process data, in order to support a transparent and responsive supporting system.
  • The support of a manufacturing environment should be suitable to be scalable at no extra cost [45,46,47]. This scalability refers to the production system reconfiguration that takes place through the integration of plug-and-produce, fully automated, digitized, highly cost efficient, smart new manufacturing units [7]. This calls for the use of new efficient re-configurable manufacturing methods such as the CPS [48], where its real time, production coordination capabilities allows boosting customer satisfaction by economically producing customized products [49,50]. These coordination capabilities come from the efficient processing of a vast amount of information (coming from tightly connected sensors, controllers, manufacturing systems, etc.), that later on is transformed into optimized decisions [51].

1.2. Digital Twins

A Digital Twin (DT) is a structure of inter-connected digital replicas of physical entities [52,53] plus their related meta-information and semantics [54], that enables real-time interaction and integration [55] between the physical and digital worlds [56], i.e., physical manufacturing system and the digital cyberspace [2,57,58]. This translates in an intensive bi-directional [59,60], standardized and/or automatized [61], real-time information flow [35] related to the current products, processes and resources [62] between the DT and the real manufacturing system [63,64], via the internet [65]. A more formal definition of DT manufacturing is provided by [66]: “…DT is a virtual representation of the physical configurations and the dynamic modeling of product, process, and resource changes during manufacturing…”. In [67], the authors present a well-founded review of the types and applications of digital twins; ref [66] presents a detailed characterization of a digital twin for production systems; refs [68,69] present an application of digital twins in production systems. DTs have an impact/influence in several other areas:
  • Industry 4.0: a DT requires a set of technologies needed for its implementation including, but not limited to, simulation methods, communication protocols, and the core technologies of Industry 4.0 [60], a concept that has emerged as a manufacturing enabler to achieve the desired time-to-market reduction [70];
  • Mass customization: the demand for highly individualized products with shorter lifestyles drives modern manufacturing systems to focus on the use of information technology-based manufacturing systems [71], such as the so-called data-driven Digital Twins [58]. A DT of a manufacturing system in the form of a simulation and data model [61] that synchronizes both the physical and digital worlds [72] can be used to address the issue of manufacturing customized products [2], as it makes the deployment of the required flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing system possible [73];
  • Manufacturing efficiency: the added value of a DT is the quick assessment and analysis of reconfiguration changes [74], improved efficiency [31,59], and performance prediction [56], of its manufacturing system counterpart [75];
  • Sustainability: DTs may be utilized to address these sustainability challenges [10]. For example, social sustainability requires the integration of human skills with technology [76], and the improvement of the environmental and social factors of smart manufacturing may conflict with the economic factor [35]. In [77] the authors depict a sustainable digital twin (SDT) framework for shifting from a static sustainability assessment to a digital twin (DT)-based and Internet of Things (IoT)-enabled dynamic approach;
  • Value Creation: within the DT context, the importance of the physical world resides in the fact that it is there where the actual value-creation process takes place [66].
A recent study presented by [78] distinguishes the concept of a DT with that of a Digital Shadow (DT). According to this author, the main difference can be stated in the following way: if a virtual model represents the physical model only, with one-way data flow, this is considered to be a Digital Shadow (DS); in a DT, both the virtual and physical entities communicate with each other. The author concludes that when developing a DT, sustainable development goals should be considered as well, in addition to the technical ones. On the other hand, a recent paper by [79] presents a systematic literature review of ninety-eight research papers dealing with the various dimensions of a DT developed at a supply chain level, giving special emphasis to the achievement of sustainable performance objectives. The results of this study reveal that such DT should follow a socio-technical holistic approach and should not be restricted to the local manufacturing systems domain. For that matter, the author presents a sustainable DT framework for supply chain systems. Among the many implications derived from this framework is the contribution to value capture, one of Industry 4.0 value domains, in the form of monetization strategies for products and services.

1.3. Digital Twins and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

The application of Industry 4.0 technologies presents two fundamental issues [80]; on the one hand, the high investments required, and on the other hand, the risks surrounding these types of projects, i.e., uncertain profitability [81]. This is particularly true for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) looking to transition towards digital transformation [82]. Even though SMEs are the pillar of the economy in many countries due to their contribution to gross domestic product creation [83,84], they have issues when adopting the latest technology [85], in particular the lack of financial resources to face costs in the form of software and expertise [86]. Moreover, when adopting/implementing technologies, such as the so-called Digital Twin (DT), SMEs face some issues, barriers, and limitations [82]; lack of expertise to manage complex Industry 4.0 structures (that is, how to digitalize/extract/visualize data which is valuable and helpful to the business), concerns about data and cyber security, lack of appropriate digital infrastructure, etc. For this reason, SMEs must explicitly perform a cost–benefit analysis (from the very beginning) of their specific circumstance and evaluate whether such costs justify the long-term benefits [86] in order to maximize the chance of success and generate sustainable competitive advantages for organizations [80].

2. Research Gaps

The following section covers the following topics: Industry 4.0, manufacturing efficiency, mass customization, sustainability, and value creation (Table 1 summarizes this review). Based on this analysis, we propose a research agenda to address the identified research gaps.

2.1. Sustainability and Manufacturing Efficiency

The balance between the elements of the triple bottom line (TBL) of sustainability (that is, the economic, environmental, and social elements) is a necessary condition for the continued success of an organization [87]. Sustainability can be understood from the perspective of successful/efficient manufacturing execution, which result from the implementation of technologies associated with Industry 4.0, as the high efficiency smart manufacturing system [88]. According to [89], the efficiency of an organization’s operation—that is, the better use of resources by the transformation process [4]—depends on the correct alignment between its strategic and operational levels. A tool developed to aid in the linking/alignment of both the strategic and operational levels is the Customer-Product-Process-Resource (CPPR) framework (Figure 1) proposed by [90,91,92]. In fact, as this strategic-operational levels linking/alignment affects the performance of a manufacturing organization [93], it becomes necessary to take it into account in order to reach high levels of sustainability (by avoiding poor efficiency in both managerial and transformation processes). On the other hand, according to [94,95], a critical enabler for an efficient mass customization process is the flexibility of the production system, that is the capability to offer product mix and changeover [96], as it allows a fast and easy reconfiguration of production facilities [97]. However, the higher process flexibility is, the more difficult it is to achieve a high manufacturing efficiency, an issue that can be properly addressed by the use of automation [98]. As the mass customization challenge requires the use of more flexible resources [99], from here we will consider the idea of addressing it through the use of an Industry 4.0 environment [100,101,102], more specifically, the use of a CPS-based smart manufacturing system.

2.2. Sustainability and Industry 4.0

Authors such as [103,104,105] mention that even though the implementation of Industry 4.0 can help in the quest for achieving sustainability, it is not clear how this is done. [106], and [107] agrees with the idea of the sustainability implications (for an organization) from the implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept. For example, a smart manufacturing system, an associated technology to Industry 4.0, is defined as a CPS coupled with (1) a decentralized, self-contained execution and decision-making structure, [108], and (2) a “self-conscious” environment [99]. The use of this technology makes it feasible to achieve the high levels of efficiency needed for a sustainable environment [109,110,111]. From here we will consider the idea that sustainability is a main requirement of a smart manufacturing systems [112,113], and that the use of this technology can help implement a sustainable production process [114]. Regarding the core technologies of Industry 4.0:
  • Studies [115,116,117,118] discuss the importance that Big Data Analytics has in supply chain sustainability. Big Data technology has been used for energy consumption monitoring [119] and energy efficiency optimization [120], to achieve sustainable smart manufacturing [121];
  • The introduction of IoT technology promotes sustainability in a global context [122,123];
  • The combination of Big Data and IoT technologies enables sustainable production processes [117,121];
  • Virtual Reality (VR)/Augmented Reality (AR) technologies lead to sustainability via better training and knowledge [124];
  • Cloud manufacturing technology improves the efficiency of a manufacturing system [125], reflected as low production costs and high levels of productivity and sustainability [121].
Appendix A presents some complementary material regarding the use of Industry 4.0-related technologies for the assessment of sustainability.

2.3. Sustainability and Value Creation

In [126], the authors consider sustainability to be one of the elements of a business model, while [127] suggests that in fact, business models must guarantee sustainability. Within this context, a business model ontology would make the design of a sustainable business model easier [128]. Regarding the implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept, even though sustainability can be considered one of its business features [129], it only addresses it when there is an economic benefit [4]. In fact, an Industry 4.0 sustainable business model is defined as “how to run a company in a sustainable way” [4], but there is no qualitative assessment of how Industry 4.0 contributes to sustainable value creation [130]. With the idea of reflecting the value domains of Industry 4.0, [131] developed the CPPR 4.0 framework (Figure 2), based on previous work by the author ([91,92]), plus the inclusion of the work of [130,131,132,133], in the area of value creation.
Figure 2. The CPPR 4.0 framework, from [131].
Figure 2. The CPPR 4.0 framework, from [131].
Automation 03 00010 g002
Table 1. Literature review summarizing table.
Table 1. Literature review summarizing table.
Sustainability and …References
Manufacturing Efficiency[4,88,89,90,91,92,93]
Mass Customization and Industry 4.0[93,96,97,99,100,101,102]
Industry 4.0[103,104,105,106,107]
Smart Manufacturing[99,108,109,110,111,112,113,114]
Virtual/Augmented Reality/Cloud Manufacturing[115,116,117,118,121,124]
Value Creation[4,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133]

2.4. Research Features

Digital Twins (DTs) connect the physical manufacturing system with the digital cyberspace. By synchronizing both worlds, the issue of manufacturing customized products can be properly addressed. In turn, this demands one to address the issue of sustainable value creation, especially if this mass customization takes place within an Industry 4.0 context. These ideas are synthetized in the concept of Sustainable Mass Customization 4.0 (SMC4.0), introduced by [134]. In general, SMC4.0 refers to the use of a re-configurable CPS as the basis of a mass customization production system, where the idea is to take advantage of the manufacturing efficiency of the smart manufacturing transformation processes to achieve the desired levels of sustainability. In this case, a transformation process is a chain of sequenced activities that transform inputs into outputs, while adding value in the process and consuming resources in between [135]. Now, in order to truly operationalize the SMC4.0 concept, it is necessary to understood it in terms of both a business and manufacturing environment:
(1)
The SMC4.0 business environment refers to a business model that reflects the economic benefits of achieving sustainability (in a context of manufacturing efficiency), plus the environmental and social impacts that will guarantee durable competitiveness;
(2)
The SMC4.0 manufacturing environment refers to a rapid responsive (quick and profitable), service-oriented (ability to fulfill the demand for highly customized products) manufacturing model.
From the perspective of a DT, this translates into the development of a real-time, up-to-date, information flow model, that assures successful/efficient manufacturing execution via the proper placing/timing of the key resources/activities, and with this, the achievement of sustainability. Thus, as the first step into building a DT with SMC4.0, we propose to use an approach similar to the one followed by [136,137,138], when building a reference model, where a “best of breed” approach combines and integrates academia initiatives that have never been put together before (which in the words of [139,140], can be considered an original approach). This requires a review of the literature in the areas of (1) sustainable value creation within an Industry 4.0 environment, and (2) the business process behind the mass customization process.
The rest of this document is composed of Section 3, which introduces a set of relationships and abilities required by the sustainable value creation process (the goal of this section is to understand what are the elements behind the process of creating value in a sustainable way); Section 4, which introduces a set of basic information elements related to the sustainable value creation process (the goal of this section is to understand what are the information elements involved in the process of creating value in a sustainable way; and Section 5, which describes the future research efforts that should be taken and offers some final conclusions.

3. Sustainable Value Creation

3.1. The Sustainable CPPR 4.0 Framework

More recently, ref [141] presented a sustainable business model canvas (SBMC) based on the TBL of sustainability (Table 2 summarizes its features). As we are interested in this document, in understanding what are the elements behind the process of creating value in a sustainable way, we claim that Cosenz’s sustainable business model canvas [141] can be used to update the original version of the CPPR 4.0 framework and derive Sustainable CPPR 4.0 (Figure 3). In order to include all the elements of sustainability:
  • Each quadrant of the framework presents the questions pertaining to each value domain, i.e., the WHO of value delivery; the WHAT of value proposition; the WHAT/WHEN/WHERE/HOW of value creation; the WHY of value capture;
  • The answers to these questions, for each value domain, can be found in Table 2;
  • The arrows pointing direction (in Figure 3) indicates the customer (clockwise, solid line) and supplier (counterclockwise, dotted line) standpoint, when reading the framework.
Figure 4 presents the quadrants (of the Sustainable CPPR 4.0) related to the value creation domain, and within those quadrants, the relationships between the elements that define value creation form an economic value perspective (similar relationships can be derived for the environmental and social perspectives).

3.2. The Value Creation Relationships

Table 3 presents the manufacturing routes of three hypothetical products presented in [134], namely A, B, and C. Figure 5 presents the manufacturing route of Product A when using a traditional strategy (left side) and a flexible strategy (right side). In the case of the traditional strategy, each machine type performs only one type of transformation process, so there are as many machine type changes as required types of transformation process. On the other hand, when following a flexible strategy, one machine type can perform two different types of transformation process. Within the context of a manufacturing system that combines both strategies, the value creation elements presented in Figure 4 are exemplified in Figure 6a (smart product) and Figure 6b (smart machine). Finally, Table 4 shows the features of these value creation relationships, and Table 5 summarizes them.
Table 3. Manufacturing routes, Products A, B, and C, from [134].
Table 3. Manufacturing routes, Products A, B, and C, from [134].
Transformation Activities Sequence Sequence Option #
ProductM1M2M3M4M14M23
PA1st 2nd 1
1st 2nd 2
1st & 2nd 3
PB1st 2nd 3rd 1
1st 2nd 3rd 2
1st 3rd 2nd 3
1st 3rd 2nd 4
2nd 1st & 3rd 5
1st & 3rd 2nd 6
PC1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 2
1st 4th 2nd & 3rd 3
1st 4th 2nd & 3rd 4
2nd 3rd 1st & 4th 5
1st & 4th 2nd & 3rd 6
Smart products (VPA, VPB, and VPC in Figure 4); where products “talk” to each other and select the most convenient manufacturing resources, depending on the transformation activities left to be performed on their respective manufacturing routes. For example, in Figure 6a, PB is the first in turn to use machine M23 for its second transformation operation, representing 33.33% of its manufacturing route. However, if PC uses machine M23, for its second and third transformation operations, that would cover 50% of its manufacturing route. In this case, PB “agrees” to wait for machine M3 to become free and let PC use machine M23 first.
Smart machines (RAi, RBi, RCi in Figure 4); where manufacturing resources “talk” to each other, and select the most convenient product to process, depending on the transformation activities each of them can perform. For example, in Figure 6b, PA is the first in turn to use either machine M14 or M4 for its second transformation operation, representing 50% of its manufacturing route. However, if PB uses machine M14, for its first and third transformation operations, that would cover 66.66% of its manufacturing route. In this case, M14 “agrees” to process PB, leaving PA to be processed by M4.
Smart process (Ai, Bi, Ci in Figure 4); where the manufacturing routes “talk” to each other and give priority to the one for which the most convenient combination of product and manufacturing resource are in place. For example, in Table 4, the manufacturing route of PB benefits the most if it is assigned the use of machine M14, as it would cover four out of six possible potential transformation activities sequences, where in two of them, the advance would be in 66.66%. In this case, the manufacturing routes of PA and PC “agrees” to this assignment, and later on, PC “agrees” to the assignment of machine M4 to the routing process of PA, as this would cover one out of three possible potential transformation activities sequences, the same case for PC, but with an advance of 50% (versus 25% of product PC).

3.3. The Value Creation Abilities

On the other hand, [89] proposed a set of necessary abilities to support value creation, grouped under the SC C4 concept (Figure 7):
Communication, the ability to share key and relevant information with the rest of the involved partners. This is possible when the means to provide free information flow/access are in place.
  • Collaboration, the ability to work together by adjusting the individual behavior of the involved partners. This is possible when the means to negotiate common benefits and risks sharing are in place.
  • Coordination, the ability to work in a harmonious way when pursuing a goal that is common to all of the involved partners. This is possible when the means to match individual actions with common decision-making processes are in place.
  • Cooperation, the ability to work for a common benefit in terms of an objective that is feasible to all of the involved partners. This is possible when the means to align the individual operational levels with the common strategic levels are in place.
These value creation abilities can be examined from the point of view of the value creation relationships (Figure 4), or termed from now on as sustainable value creation C4:
  • Communication, the ability to share key and relevant information to the rest of the involved partners. In this case, the involved partners refer to the smart products, process, and resources. In the case of information, we propose the definition proposed by [143]:
    • Information: data (detected signal that shows a non-random quantified pattern) that have been evaluated to have relevance and used for establishing a course of action to implement defined objectives.
    From the DT perspective, this means that there must be a mechanism in place that allows the smart products, processes, and resources “to talk among themselves and understand each other”, with the purpose of establishing a common objective. In Figure 8, the “ontology and semantics” element represents the means through which the DT allows interactions of the elements of the physical world.
  • Collaboration, the ability to work together by adjusting the individual behavior of the involved partners. This is possible when the means to negotiate common benefits and risks sharing is in place. In the case of behavior, we propose the definition proposed by CIMOSA, the Computer Integrated Manufacturing–Open Systems Architecture [144], when referring to the behavior of a process:
    • Behavior: defined by a set of procedural rules that dictate how actions/activities need to be done/executed. This behavior is intended for the achievement of some objective, under some constraints, using some resources. A procedural rule can be in the form of a triggering condition (i.e., a system state) or an event (that is, a solicited request/unsolicited real-world happening which initiates the execution of an action/activity).
    From the DT perspective, this means that there must be a mechanism in place that allows the smart products, processes, and resources “to define” a combined set of procedural rules that “guides” the pursuing of the common objective, within the upper limit of the benefits and the lower limit of the risks (Figure 9).
  • Coordination, the ability to work in a harmonious way when pursuing an objective that is common to all of the involved partners. This is possible when the means to match individual actions with common decision-making processes are in place. In the case of decision-making, the structure of a GRAI net (Figure 10, Table 6), which is basically a Petri net with special graphical symbols [145], could be used to represent it. From the DT perspective, this means that there must be a mechanism in place that allows the smart products, processes, and resources “to visualize” the impact of the individual decision-making processes, therefore, the next action/activity that needs to be done/executed can be determined properly.
  • Cooperation, the ability to work for a common benefit in terms of a goal that is feasible to all of the involved partners. This is possible when the means to fit/integrate the individual contributions with the overall result are in place. From the DT perspective, this means that there must be a mechanism in place that allows the smart products, processes, and resources, “to integrate” their individual contributions, so the placing (where)/timing(when) of the next action/activity that needs to be done/executed can be determined properly.

4. The SMC4.0 Information Flow Model

The basis for fulfilling the needs of a mass customization environment is based on the analysis of the data generated in increasing volume, variety, and velocity that enhances/improves the decision-making process at the different manufacturing stages [100]. This information has different views, namely forecasting, quoting, order specification, scheduling, production, finished product, historical records, and revival for warranty or service [146]. Moreover, the integration of the Industry 4.0 concept with mass customization requires one to implement communication between machines, between product and machine, between humans and machines, and between the manufacturing system and the customer [7]. Table 7 presents a summary of different mass customization business processes: the design–sell–make–assemble cycle proposed by [147,148], the product development–order taking–order fulfilment (management and realization) fundamental processes proposed by [146,149,150], and the five step sequence for the execution of the mass customization approach within an Industry 4.0 environment proposed by [34].
On the other hand, [146,151] mention that the mass customization paradigm often uses a Make-to-Order (MTO) approach. The authors of [152,153] agree with this, due to the fact that an MTO approach is a business production strategy that allows consumers to purchase products that are customized to their specifications, and where the manufacturing of an item begins only after a confirmed customer order is received. For this reason, [99] refers to the output of a mass customization production system, operating within an Industry 4.0 context, as “customer-specific, make-to-order” products. The authors of [154] use the term digital MTO when talking about mass customization operating in the context of Industry 4.0. As we are interested in determining the basic structure of the information flow model that will support the operation of SMC4.0, we propose to take the value domains of the proposed ustainable CPPR 4.0 framework, and map them into the MTO mass customization business processes proposed by [36,146,147,148,149,150], and the sub-cycles/activities that define the MTO approach, as proposed by [155]. Moreover, we propose to focus only on the order fulfillment business process (highlighted in yellow in Table 7), as this is the one that corresponds to the value creation section of the Sustainable CPPR4.0 framework (Figure 4). By proceeding in this way, we can address DT’s imperative of having a mechanism in place that allows for high levels of sustainability (result of successful/efficient manufacturing execution), via the proper linking/alignment of both the strategic/operational levels of a mass customization manufacturing organization.
Table 7. MTO–based mass customization business processes (author’s original). In this way, the set of mass customization structural elements (highlighted in yellow, in Table 8), proposed by [131], can be used to reflect the strategic/operational alignment conditions within the context of the mass customization paradigm environment. This set of structural elements have proved to be useful in the development of a system dynamics model for the purpose of analyzing the demand fulfillment capability of a mass customization manufacturing environment. In this work, demand fulfillment was understood in terms of achieved production volume and was the result of a combination of a different level of customization and level of system reconfiguration values. Appendix B (Figure A1, Table A1) offers the details of the relationships among the structural elements in terms of a Casual Loop Diagram (CLD), as well as a description of each one.
Table 7. MTO–based mass customization business processes (author’s original). In this way, the set of mass customization structural elements (highlighted in yellow, in Table 8), proposed by [131], can be used to reflect the strategic/operational alignment conditions within the context of the mass customization paradigm environment. This set of structural elements have proved to be useful in the development of a system dynamics model for the purpose of analyzing the demand fulfillment capability of a mass customization manufacturing environment. In this work, demand fulfillment was understood in terms of achieved production volume and was the result of a combination of a different level of customization and level of system reconfiguration values. Appendix B (Figure A1, Table A1) offers the details of the relationships among the structural elements in terms of a Casual Loop Diagram (CLD), as well as a description of each one.
Sustainable CPPR 4.0Mass Customization Business ProcessesMake-to-Order
[131][147,148][146][149,150][34][155]
SubcyclesActivities
Value PropositionDesignProduct development/designDevelopment;
i.e., product development/design
Step #1: personalizationDesignDesign new productsConduct market research
Analyze product technology
Develop prototype
Design new components
Modify standard design to meet customer requirements
Obtain customer approval for new design
Develop bill of material and process plans
Value CaptureSellOrder takingInteraction;
i.e., order placement
Step #2: purchasingOrder processingRespond to customer inquiry
Create sales orderDevelop specifications
Determine delivery
Determine price
Check customer credit
Receive customer approval
Value CreationMake/AssemblyOrder fulfillment managementProduction;
i.e., fabrication/assembly
Steps #3 and #4: manufacturingProductionProduction planning and control
Materials management
Fabricate parts
Assemble products
Inspection, testing, rework
Inventory finished products
Value DeliveryN/AOrder fulfillment
realization
Logistics;
i.e., packing/delivery
Step #5: deliveringDistributionShip products to distribution center
Pick products for customer orders
Ship products and invoice customers

Managerial Implications

Small-to-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) have a high impact on the overall economy of many countries, something that has been reported frequently in the literature. However, how they could participate in a SMC4.0 environment imposes several challenges. SMEs need to adapt their business models and implement Industry 4.0-related technologies [156], which in turn results in a struggle to obtain the required resources/knowledge, i.e., standards and norms foreign to them [50], for successful adaptation/implementation [22]. This creates a false perception that this level of advanced automation is reserved to big industrial players [157]. Additionally, SMEs have no clear idea of how the strategic business level and operational technological level are related and should be linked [158]. It is our belief that a DT developed for the case of the SMC4.0 environment, can be used as a what-if scenario testing tool, so the proper balance between capital investment and sustainable profitability can be assessed.

5. Concluding Remarks

5.1. Future Research

As stated previously, in order to truly operationalize the SMC4.0 concept, it is required to understood this in terms of both a business and manufacturing environment. As the first step towards this goal, future research should focus on the development of the sustainable value creation C4 mechanisms:
  • A mechanism for smart products, processes, and resources, “to talk among themselves and understand each other” (Communication);
  • A mechanism for smart products, processes, and resources, “to define” a combined set of procedural rules that “guides” the pursuing of the common objective (Collaboration);
  • A mechanism for smart products, processes, and resources, “to visualize” the impact of the individual decision-making processes (Coordination);
  • A mechanism for smart products, processes, and resources, “to integrate” their individual contributions (Cooperation).
These mechanisms, once developed, could be tested using the DT capabilities to “recreate” the physical world, in order to test their validity, before being implemented in the real physical world.

5.2. Conclusions

Business enterprises all around the world are facing the challenge of moving from a mass production market to the mass customization one. In the latter, customers have the opportunity to design their own products/services without paying a high price premium. These challenges require companies to develop new value creation business models, based on the integration of technological innovations that promote the value-creation from exploiting available data. Digital Twins (DTs) are one of the disruptive technologies-associated with the Industry 4.0 concept which synchronizes the physical and digital, and with these allows one to address the issue of manufacturing customized products. Some relevant concepts related to the role of DTs in the achievement of sustainable value creation within a mass customization 4.0 environment were reviewed. Derived from this exercise, the Sustainable CPPR 4.0 framework was introduced as the ultimate success within the mass customization paradigm which depends on its level of sustainability, achieved through the use of an efficient manufacturing processes. The Sustainable CPPR 4.0 framework was used to analyze the set of relationships and abilities that support the value creation process, and in each case, the implications from a DT perspective were discussed. Finally, a CLD showing the relationships among the mass customization structural elements that reflect the strategic/operational alignment conditions within the context of the mass customization paradigm environment was presented. The idea behind the CLD is to serve as a basis for the information flow model to assure successful/efficient manufacturing execution.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Industry 4.0-related technologies can have a positive role in boosting sustainable performance [159]. For example, the digitalization/interconnection of all production areas is a key facilitator in the efficiency of industrial processes, i.e., reduction of waste generation through its recycling [160], as well as efficient management of energy consumption [161,162] enabling the adoption of a circular economy [106]. Within this, products can be disassembled into their component elements for reuse, recycling, or remanufacturing [105,163]. This is possible due to the use of a smart factory, that allows controlling and analyzing the life cycle of any product within/outside the manufacturing area in a transparent and integral way [164]. In general, Industry 4.0 can help to meet the environmental, economic, and social targets of sustainability [165]:
  • From an economic point of view, Industry 4.0 technologies can reduce set-up times, achieve shorter lead times, reduce labor and material costs, increase production flexibility, achieve higher productivity, and enhance customization [166];
  • From an ecological point of view, Industry 4.0 technologies can reduce energy/resource consumption through detection/data analysis across production/supply chain processes [167] and lead to reduction in waste/CO2 emissions through data-centered and traceable carbon footprint analyses [168];
  • From a social point of view, Industry 4.0 technologies can support employee health and safety, by taking over monotonous and repetitive tasks resulting in higher employee satisfaction and motivation [21].
Now, within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (or SDGs), for firms, industries, and countries to achieve sustainable development [169], Industry 4.0 technologies have the potential to benefit all of the seventeen SDGs [170]:
  • Economic sustainability attributes; end poverty (EP), decent work and economic growth (DWEG), industry, innovation, and infrastructure (III), reduced inequalities (RI), and partnerships for the goals (PG).
  • Social sustainability attributes; end hunger (EH), good health and well-being (GHW), quality education (QE), gender equality (GE), and peace, justice and strong institutions (PJSI);
  • Environmental impact attributes; clean water and sanitation (CWS), affordable and clean energy (ACE), sustainable cities and communities (SCC), responsible consumption and production (RCP), climate action (CA), life below water (LBW), and life on land (LL).
The reader interested in the specific Industry 4.0 technology that impacts each one of the 17 SDGs can consult Table 2 in [170]. Even though there are few studies that provide insight into the interface between Industry 4.0 technologies and sustainability, ref [171] makes a review of these studies.

Appendix B

Figure A1. Mass customization structural elements-CLD relationships (author’s original).
Figure A1. Mass customization structural elements-CLD relationships (author’s original).
Automation 03 00010 g0a1
Table A1. CLD relationships’ definition (author’s original).
Table A1. CLD relationships’ definition (author’s original).
Mass Customization Structural ElementsRange of ValuesRn *FromToRt **
01
Level of customization (lc)Standard productPersonalized product1lclowoq+
Level of OW/OQ (lowoq)100% Common features100% Unique features2lclpva+
Level of product’s complexity (lpcplx)Few operations/easy to executeLot of operations/hard to execute3lpvalpvo
Level of production variety (lpva)A small number of modelsA large number of models4lowoqlpcplx+
Level of production volume (lpvo)A few units producedA lot of units produced5lowoqlcomp+
Level of system’s reconfiguration (lsr)Hard-connected workstations/rigid flowLoose-connected workstations/flexible flow6lpcplxltech+
Level of equipment technification (ltech)Specialized-use equipmentGeneral-use equipment7lpcplxlsr+
Level of labor skill (ls)Single-task specialistMultiple-task generalist8lpcplxls+
Level of components (lcomp)Small number of componentsLarge number of components9ltechlcomp+
Level of customization (lc)100% Common features100% Unique features10ltechls+
Level of OW/OQ (lowoq)Few operations/easy to executeLot of operations/hard to execute11lsrlpvo
Rn * Relationship number; Rt ** Relationship type (positive +; negative ).

References

  1. Hu, S.J. Evolving paradigms of manufacturing: From mass production to mass customization and personalization. Procedia CIRP 2013, 7, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Aheleroff, S.; Zhong, R.Y.; Xu, X. A Digital Twin Reference for Mass Personalization in Industry 4.0. Procedia Cirp 2020, 93, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Waris, M.M.; Sanin, C.; Szczerbicki, E. Smart Innovation Engineering (SIE): Experience-Based Product Innovation System for Industry 4.0. In Information Systems Architecture and Technology, Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Information Systems Architecture and Technology–ISAT 2017, Szklarska Poręba, Poland, 17–19 September 2017; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Wilimowska, Z., Borzemski, L., Światek, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. de Man, J.C.; Strandhagen, J.O. An Industry 4.0 research agenda for sustainable business models. Procedia CIRP 2017, 63, 721–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Efthymiou, K. Manufacturing systems complexity review: Challenges and outlook. Procedia CIRP 2012, 3, 644–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Pfisterer, D.; Radonjic-Simic, M.; Reichwald, J. Business Model Design and Architecture for the Internet of Everything. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2016, 5, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Raza, A.; Haouari, L.; Pero, M.; Absi, N. Impacts of Industry 4.0 on the Specific Case of Mass Customization through Modeling and Simulation Approach. In Customization 4.0; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Hankammer, S., Ed.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Torn, I.A.R.; Vaneker, T.H.J. Mass Personalization with Industry 4.0 by SMEs: A Concept for Collaborative Networks. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 28, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, Y.; Ma, H.S.; Yang, J.H.; Wang, K.S. Industry 4.0: A Way from Mass Customization to Mass Personalization Production. Adv. Manuf. 2017, 5, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Martinez, S.; Mariño, A.; Sanchez, S.; Montes, A.M.; Triana, J.M.; Barbieri, G.; Abolghasem, S.; Vera, J.; Guevara, M. A Digital Twin Demonstrator to enable flexible manufacturing with robotics: A process supervision case study. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2021, 9, 140–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zawadzki, P.; Zywicki, K. Smart product design and production control for effective mass customization in the industry 4.0 concept. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev. 2016, 7, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bednar, S.; Modrak, J.; Soltysova, Z. Assessment of Assembly Process Complexity and Modularity in Mass Customized Manufacturing. In Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Manufacturing Engineering and Technologies, Belgrade, Serbia, 5–9 June 2017; Majstorovic, V., Jakovljevic, Z., Eds.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Varnhagen, V.; Schuh, G. Fokus Automobilindustrie: Digitale Wertschöpfungsnetzwerke im Werkzeugbau; Apprimus Verlag: Aachen, Germany, 2013; p. 5. ISBN 978-3-86359-1533. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sauter, R.; Bode, M.; Kittelberger, D. How Industry 4.0 is Changing How We Manage Value Creation. 2015. Available online: www.horvarth-partners.com (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  15. Ardito, L.; Petruzzelli, A.M.; Panniello, U.; Garavelli, A.C. Towards Industry 4.0: Mapping digital technologies for supply chain management-marketing integration. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2018, 25, 323–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Schneider, P. Managerial challenges of Industry 4.0: An empirically backed research agenda for a nascent field. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2018, 12, 803–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Foresti, F.; Varvakis, G. Ubiquity and Industry 4.0. Knowledge Management in Digital Change. In Progress in IS; North, K., Ed.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schumacher, A.; Erolb, S.; Sihn, W. A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises. Procedia CIRP 2016, 52, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lin, D.; Lee, C.K.M.; Lau, H.; Yang, Y. Strategic response to Industry 4.0: An empirical investigation on the Chinese automotive industry. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2018, 118, 589–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Moktadir, A.; Ali, S.M.; Shaikh, A.A. Assessing challenges for implementing Industry 4.0: Implications for process safety and environmental protection. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 730–741. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chukwuekwe, D.O.; Schjølberg, P.; Rødseth, H.; Stuber, A. Reliable, Robust and Resilient Systems: Towards Development of a Predictive Maintenance. In Proceedings of the Euromaintenance 2016 Conference, Athens, Greece, 30 May–1 June 2016; Volume 24. [Google Scholar]
  22. Müller, J.M.; Maier, L.; Veile, J.; Voigt, K.I. Cooperation Strategies among SMEs for Implementing Industry 4.0. In Digitalization in Supply Chain Management and Logistics: Smart and Digital Solutions for an Industry 4.0 Environment, Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL); Kersten, W., Blecker, T., Ringle, C.M., Eds.; epubli GmbH: Berlin, Germanny, 2017; ISBN 9783745043280. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bitkom, E.V.; Vdma, E.V.; Zvei, E.V. Implementation Strategy Industrie 4.0: Report on the results of the Industrie 4.0 Platform; Bitkom e.V. Bundesverband Informationswirtschaft, Telekommunikation und neue Medien e.V.: Berlin, Germany, 2016; ISBN 978-3-00-052211-6. [Google Scholar]
  24. Tjahjonoa, B.; Espluguesb, C.; Aresc, E.; Pelaezc, G. What does Industry 4.0 mean to Supply Chain? Procedia Manuf. 2017, 13, 1175–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ibarra, D.; Ganzarain, J.; Igartua, J.I. Business model innovation through Industry 4.0: A review. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 22, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Junior, J.A.G.; Busso, C.M.; Gobbo, S.C.O.; Carreão, H. Making the links among environmental protection, process safety, and industry 4.0. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 372–382. [Google Scholar]
  27. Židek, K.; Pitel’, J.; Adámek, M.; Lazorík, P.; Hošovský, A. Digital Twin of Experimental Smart Manufacturing Assembly System for Industry 4.0 Concept. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Iarovyi, S.; Mohammed, W.M.; Lobov, A.; Ferrer, B.R.; Lastra, J.L.M. Cyber-physical systems for open-knowledge-driven manufacturing execution systems. Proc. IEEE 2016, 104, 1142–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Thames, L.; Schaefer, D. Industry 4.0: An Overview of Key Benefits, Technologies, and Challenges. In Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0; Springer Series in Advanced Manufacturing; Thames, L., Schaefer, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhong, R.Y.; Xu, X.; Klotz, E.; Newman, T.S.T.S. Intelligent Manufacturing in the Context of Industry 4.0: A Review. Engineering 2017, 3, 616–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rodic, B. Industry 4.0 and the new simulation modelling paradigm. Organizacija 2017, 50, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Stump, B.; Badurdeen, F. Integrating lean and other strategies for mass customization manufacturing: A case study. J. Intell. Manuf. 2012, 230, 109–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gabriel, M.; Pessl, E. Industry 4.0 and Sustainability impacts: Critical discussion of sustainability aspects with a special focus on future of work and ecological consequences. Ann. Fac. Eng. Hunedoar Int. J. Eng. 2016, 14, 131. [Google Scholar]
  34. Latorre-Biel, J.I.; Faulín, J.; Juan, A.A.; Jiménez-Macías, E. Petri Net Model of a Smart Factory in the Frame of Industry 4.0. IFAC Pap. 2018, 51, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, L.; Mao, C.; Sun, H.; Yuan, Y.; Lei, B. Digital Twin Driven Green Performance Evaluation Methodology of Intelligent Manufacturing: Hybrid Model Based on Fuzzy Rough-Sets AHP, Multistage Weight Synthesis, and PROMETHEE II. Complexity 2020, 2020, 3853925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Duarte, S.; Cruz-Machado, V. Exploring Linkages Between Lean and Green Supply Chain and the Industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, Melbourne, Australia, 1–14 August 2018; Lecture Notes on Multidisciplinary Industrial Engineering. Xu, J., Ed.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dziurzanski, P.; Swan, J.; Indrusiak, L.S. Value-Based Manufacturing Optimization in Serverless Clouds for Industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO′18, Kyoto, Japan, 15–19 July 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kannan, S.M.; Suri, K.; Cadavid, J.; Barosan, I.; van den Brand, M.; Alferez, M.; Gerard, S. Towards Industry 4.0: Gap Analysis between Current Automotive MES and Industry Standards using Model-Based Requirement Engineering. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture Workshops (ICSAW), Gothenburg, Sweden, 5–7 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
  39. Singh, P.; Jonkers, H.; Iacob, M.; van Sinderen, M. Modeling Value Creation with Enterprise Architecture. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2014), Lisbon, Portugal, 27–30 April 2014; pp. 343–351, ISBN 978-989-758-029-1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Boër, C.R.; Pedrazzoli, P.; Bettoni, A.; Sorlini, M. Mass Customization and Sustainability; Springer: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tu, M.; Lim, M.K.; Yang, M.F. IoT-based production logistics and supply chain system–Part 2. IoT-based cyber-physical system: A framework and evaluation. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2018, 118, 96–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Sievänen, M.; Heiskala, M.; Tiihonen, J.; Paloheimo, K.S.; Siirilä, T. Analyzing service mass customization business models. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Mass Customization and Personalization in Central Europe (MCP-CE 2010), Novi Sad, Serbia, 22–24 September 2010; pp. 72–78. [Google Scholar]
  43. Schuh, G. Digital Connected Production; Werkzeugmaschinenlabor WZL der RWTH Aachen, Fraunhofer-Institut für Produktionstechnologie: Aachen, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schuh, G.; Boos, W.; Kelzenberg, C. Industrie 4.0: Implement it! In Ein Leitfaden zur Erfolgreichen Implementierung von Industrie 4.0-Lösungen; Werkzeugmaschinenlabor WZL der RWTH: Aachen, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nielsen, K.; Brunø, T.D. Assessment of Process Robustness for Mass Customization. In IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems; Prabhu, V., Taisch, M., Kiritsis, D., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013; Volume 414. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nielsen, K.; Brunoe, T.D.; Joergensen, K.A.; Taps, S.B.; Brunoe, T.D. (Eds.) Lecture Notes in Production Engineering. In Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Mass Customization, Personalization, and Co-Creation (MCPC 2014), Aalborg, Denmark, 4–7 February 2014; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ditlev, T.; Taps, S.B.; Nielsen, K. Chapter 15 Mass Customization in SMEs: Literature Review and Research Directions. In Managing Complexity, Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Bellemare, J., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tang, H.; Li, D.; Wang, S.; Dong, Z. CASOA: An Architecture for Agent-Based Manufacturing System in the Context of Industry 4.0. IEEE Access 2017, 6, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ivanov, D.; Dolgui, A.; Sokolov, B. A Dynamic Approach to Multi-stage Job Shop Scheduling in an Industry 4.0-Based Flexible Assembly System. In Advances in Production Management Systems. The Path to Intelligent, Collaborative and Sustainable Manufacturing; Lödding, H., Riedel, R., Thoben, K.D., von Cieminski, G., Kiritsis, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 513. [Google Scholar]
  50. Schröder, C. The Challenges of Industry 4.0 for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises; Wirtschafts-und Sozialpolitik, A., Ed.; Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; ISBN 978-3-95861-543-4. [Google Scholar]
  51. Xu, J.; Huang, E.; Hsieh, L.; Lee, L.H.; Jia, Q.S.; Chen, C.H. Simulation optimization in the era of Industrial 4.0 and the Industrial Internet. J. Simul. 2016, 10, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. El Saddik, A. Digital Twins: The Convergence of Multimedia Technologies. IEEE MultiMedia 2018, 25, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stark, R.; Damerau, T. Digital Twin. In CIRP Encyclopedia of Production Engineering; Chatti, S., Tolio, T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rosen, R.; Wichert, V.; Lo, G.; Bettenhausen, K.D. About the Importance of Autonomy and Digital Twins for the Future of Manufacturing. IFAC-Papersonline 2015, 28, 567–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lu, Y.; Liu, C.; Kevin, I.; Wang, K.; Huang, H.; Xu, X. Digital Twin-driven smart manufacturing: Connotation, reference model, applications and research issues. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2020, 61, 101837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, C.; Xu, W.; Liu, J.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Pham, D.T. A Reconfigurable Modelling Approach for Digital Twin-based Manufacturing System. Procedia CIRP 2019, 83, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Oks, S.J.; Fritzsche, A.; Moslein, K.M. Engineering cyber-physical systems: An application map-based method. Procedia CIRP 2018, 72, 456–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Göppert, A.; Grahn, L.; Rachner, J.; Grunert, D.; Hort, S.; Schmitt, R.H. Pipeline for ontology-based modeling and automated deployment of digital twins for planning and control of manufacturing systems. J. Intell. Manuf. 2021, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Digital Twin Technology and Simulation: Benefits, Usage and Predictions 2018, 11 November 2017; pp. 1–6. Available online: https://www.i-Scoop.eu (accessed on 22 December 2021).
  60. Kritzinger, W.; Karner, M.; Traar, G.; Henjes, J.; Sihn, W. Digital twin in manufacturing: A categorical literature review and classification. IFAC-Papersonline 2018, 510, 1016–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Barni, A.; Pietraroia, D.; Züst, S.; West, S.; Stoll, O. Digital Twin Based Optimization of a Manufacturing Execution System to Handle High Degrees of Customer Specifications. J. Manuf. Mater. Process 2020, 4, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Biesinger, F.; Meike, D.; Kraß, B.; Weyrich, M. A digital twin for production planning based on cyber-physical systems: A Case Study for a Cyber-Physical System-Based Creation of a Digital Twin. Procedia CIRP 2019, 79, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cyber-Physical Systems. Driving Force for Innovation in Mobility, Health, Energy and Production; Hellinger, A., Seeger, H., Eds.; National Academy of Science and Engineering: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  64. Monostori, L. Cyber-physical production systems: Roots, expectations and R&D challenges. Procedia CIRP 2014, 17, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Samir, S.K.; Khabazzi, M.R.; Maffei, A.; Onori, M.A. Key Performance Indicators in Cyber-Physical Production Systems. Procedia CIRP 2018, 72, 498–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. ISO/DIS 23247-1 to 23247-4. Automation Systems and Integration—Digital Twin Framework for Manufacturing; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  67. Jones, D.; Snider, C.; Nassehi, A.; Yon, J.; Hicks, B. Characterizing the Digital Twin: A systematic literature review. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2020, 29, 36–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ding, K.; Chan, F.T.S.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, F. Defining a Digital Twin-based Cyber-Physical Production System for autonomous manufacturing in smart shop floors. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 6315–6334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Park, K.T.; Lee, J.; Kim, H.J.; Noh, S.D. Digital twin-based cyber physical production system architectural framework for personalized production. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2020, 106, 1787–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhong, R.Y.; Xu, X.; Aheleroff, S. Smart Manufacturing Systems for Industry 4.0: A Conceptual Framework. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering, Online, 1 May 2017; pp. 10–31. [Google Scholar]
  71. Schutzer, K.; Bertazzi, J.A.; Sallati, C.; Anderl, R.; Zancul, E. Contribution to the development of a Digital Twin based on product lifecycle to support the manufacturing process. Procedia CIRP 2019, 84, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Colangelo, E.; Hartleif, S.; Fulga-Beising, B. Informationsmanagement in der Smart Factory. 2019. Available online: https://e-paper.vdi-fachmedien.de/werkstattstechnik/ (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  73. Kousi, N.; Gkournelos, C.; Aivaliotis, S.; Giannoulis, C.; Michalos, G.; Makris, S. Digital twin for adaptation of robots’ behavior in flexible robotic assembly lines. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 28, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rodionov, N.; Tatarnikova, L. Digital twin technology as a modern approach to quality management. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Ulis, France, 2021; Volume 284, pp. 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Talkhestani, B.A.; Weyrich, M. Digital Twin of manufacturing systems: A case study on increasing the efficiency of reconfiguration. at-Automatisierungstechnik 2020, 68, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Madonna, M.; Monica, L.; Anastasi, S.; di Nardo, M. Evolution of cognitive demand in the human–machine interaction integrated with industry 4.0 technologies. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2019, 189, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Tagliabue, L.C.; Cecconi, F.R.; Maltese, S.; Rinaldi, S.; Ciribini, A.L.C.; Flammini, A. Leveraging Digital Twin for Sustainability Assessment of an Educational Building. Sustainability 2021, 13, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sepasgozar, S.M.E. Differentiating Digital Twin from Digital Shadow: Elucidating a Paradigm Shift to Expedite a Smart, Sustainable Built Environment. Buildings 2021, 11, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kamble, S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Parekh, H.; Mani, V.; Belhadi, A.; Sharma, R. Digital twin for sustainable manufacturing supply chains: Current trends, future perspectives, and an implementation framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 176, 121448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sartal, A.; Bellas, R.; Mejıas, A.M.; Garcıa-Collado, A. The sustainable manufacturing concept, evolution and opportunities within Industry 4.0: A literature review. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2020, 12, 1687814020925232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Arnold, C.; Kiel, D.; Voigt, K.I. How the industrial internet of things changes business models in different manufacturing industries. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2016, 20, 1640015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Brunet-Thornton, R.; Martinez, F. Analyzing the Impacts of Industry 4.0 in Modern Business Environments; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  83. Etuk, R.U.; Etuk, G.R.; Baghebo, M. Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (Smes) and Nigeria’s Economic Development. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2014, 5, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ilegbinosa, I.A.; Jumbo, E. Small and Medium Scale Enterprises and Economic Growth in Nigeria: 1975–2012. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 10, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Dobrovic, J.; Urbanski, M.; Gallo, P.; Benková, E.; Cabinová, V. Balanced scorecard concept as a tool of strategic management and its usage in the construction industry. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 18, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yasin, A.; Pang, T.Y.; Cheng, C.T.; Miletic, M.A. Roadmap to Integrate Digital Twins for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fakhimi, M.; Lampros, K.; Stergioulas, N.; Navonil, M. Modelling for sustainable development using the triple-bottom line: Methods, challenges and the need for hybrid M&S. In Proceedings of the 2017 Winter Simulation Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 3–6 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  88. Oztemel, E.; Gursev, S. Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. J. Intell. Manuf. 2020, 31, 127–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Martínez-Olvera, C.; Davizon-Castillo, Y.A. Modeling the supply chain management creation of value: A literature review of relevant concept. In Applications of Contemporary Management Approaches in Supply Chains; IntechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2015; ISBN 978-953-51-2045-2. [Google Scholar]
  90. Martínez-Olvera, C.; Shunk, D. Comprehensive framework for the development of a supply chain strategy. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2006, 44, 4511–4528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Martínez-Olvera, C. Reference model of the manufacturing execution activity in make-to-order environments. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 47, 1635–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Martínez-Olvera, C. Methodology for realignment of supply-chain structural elements. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 114, 714–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ivanov, D. Structural Dynamics and Resilience in Supply Chain Risk Management. In International Series in Operations Research & Management Science; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zipkin, P. The limits of mass customization. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2001, 42, 81–87. [Google Scholar]
  95. Andersen, A.L.; Larsen, J.K.; Nielsen, K.; Brunoe, T.D.; Ketelsen, C. Exploring Barriers Toward the Development of Changeable and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems for Mass-Customized Products: An Industrial Survey. In Customization 4.0, Proceedings of the 9th World Mass Customization & Personalization Conference (MCPC 2017), Aachen, Germany, 20–21 November 2017; Hankammer, S., Nielsen, K., Piller, F.T., Schuh, G., Wang, N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  96. Blecker, T.; Friedrich, G. Guest Editorial: Mass Customization Manufacturing Systems. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2007, 54, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dhungana, D.; Haselböck, A.; Taupe, R. A Marketplace for Smart Production Ecosystems. In Customization 4.0, Proceedings of the 9th World Mass Customization & Personalization Conference (MCPC 2017), Aachen, Germany, 20–21 November 2017; Hankammer, S., Nielsen, K., Piller, F.T., Schuh, G., Wang, N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  98. Gullander, P.; Davidsson, A.; Dencker, K.; Fasth, Å.; Fässberg, T.; Harlin, U.; Stahre, J. Towards a Production Complexity Model that Supports Operation, Re-balancing and Man-hour Planning. In Proceedings of the 4th Swedish Production Symposium, SPS11, Lund, Sweden, 3–5 May 2011. [Google Scholar]
  99. Lachenmaier, J.F.; Lasi, H.; Kemper, H.G. Simulation of production processes involving cyber-physical systems. Procedia CIRP 2017, 62, 577–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Mourtzis, D.; Fotia, S.; Boli, N.; Pittaro, P. Product-service system (PSS) complexity metrics within mass customization and Industry 4.0 environment. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 97, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Yao, X.; Zhou, J.; Lin, Y.; Li, Y.; Yu, H.; Liu, Y. Smart manufacturing based on cyber-physical systems and beyond. J. Intell. Manuf. 2019, 30, 2805–2817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Bordeleau, F.E.; Mosconi, E.; Santa-Eulalia, L.A. Business Intelligence Value Creation: A Multiple Case Study in Manufacturing SMEs undergoing an Industry 4.0 transformation. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 3–6 January 2018; pp. 3944–3953. [Google Scholar]
  103. Sun, Y.; Yan, H.; Lu, C.; Bie, R.; Thomas, P. A holistic approach to visualizing business models for the internet of things. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2012, 1, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Brettel, M.; Friederichsen, N.; Keller, M.; Rosenberg, M. How Virtualization, Decentralization and Network Building Change the Manufacturing Landscape: An Industry 4.0 Perspective. Int. J. Mech. Aerosp. Ind. Mechatron. Eng. 2014, 8, 37–44. [Google Scholar]
  105. Stock, T.; Seliger, G. Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP 2016, 40, 536–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Jabbour, A.B.L.S.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Foropon, C.; Godinho, F. When titans meet–Can industry 4.0 revolutionize the environmentally sustainable manufacturing wave? The role of critical success factors. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 132, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Jabbour, A.B.L.S.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Godinho, F.; Roubaud, D. Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A proposed research agenda and original roadmap for sustainable operations. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 270, 273–286. [Google Scholar]
  108. Gräßler, A.P.; Pottebaum, J. Creation of a Learning Factory for Cyber Physical Production Systems. Procedia CIRP 2016, 54, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Davis, J.; Edgar, T.; Porter, J.; Bernaden, J.; Sarli, M. Smart manufacturing, manufacturing intelligence and demand-dynamic performance. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2012, 47, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kang, H.S.; Lee, J.Y.; Choi, S.S.; Kim, H.; Park, J.H.; Son, J.Y.; Kim, B.H.; Noh, S.D. Smart manufacturing: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol. 2016, 3, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Woo, J.; Shin, S.J.; Seo, W.; Meilanitasari, P. Developing a big data analytics platform for manufacturing systems: Architecture, method, and implementation. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 99, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Yoon, J.S.; Shin, S.J.; Suh, S.H. A conceptual framework for the ubiquitous factory. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012, 50, 2174–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kusiak, A. Smart manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 508–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wang, S.; Wan, J.; Li, D.; Zhang, C. Implementing Smart Factory of Industrie 4.0: An Outlook. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2016, 12, 3159805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Hazen, B.; Boone, C.; Farmer, L.A.; Ezell, J. Data quality for data science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply chain management: An introduction to the problem and suggestions for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. 2014, 154, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Hazen, B.T.; Skipper, J.B.; Ezell, J.D.; Boone, C.A. Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain sustainability: A theory-driven research agenda. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 101, 592–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Papadopoulos, T.; Gunasekaran, A.; Dubey, R.; Altay, N.; Childe, S.J.; Wamba, S.F. The role of big data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 1108–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Wu, K.J.; Liao, C.J.; Tseng, M.L.; Lim, M.K.; Hu, J.; Tan, K. Toward sustainability: Using big data to explore the decisive attributes of supply chain risks and uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 42, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Jia, S.; Tang, R.; Lv, J. Therblig-based energy demand modeling methodology of machining process to support intelligent manufacturing. J. Intell. Manuf. 2014, 25, 913–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Wang, S.; Liang, W.D.; Cai, X.T. Big data enabled intelligent immune system for energy efficient manufacturing management. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Zhang, L.; Mai, J.; Li, B.H.; Tao, F.; Chao, C.; Ren, L.; Huntsinger, R.C. Future Manufacturing Industry with Cloud Manufacturing. In Cloud-Based Design and Manufacturing (CBDM); Schaefer, D., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Yao, X.; Lian, Z.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jin, H. Wisdom manufacturing: New humans-computers-things collaborative manufacturing model. Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 2014, 20, 1490–1498. [Google Scholar]
  123. Yao, X.; Yu, M.; Chen, Y.; Xiang, Z. Connotation, architecture and key technologies of internet of manufacturing things. Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 2014, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  124. Mittal, S.; Khan, M.A.; Romero, D.; Wuest, T. Smart manufacturing: Characteristics, technologies and enabling factors. Proc. IMechE Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2017, 233, 1342–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Simeone, A. Resource efficiency optimization engine in smart production networks via intelligent cloud manufacturing platforms. Procedia CIRP 2018, 78, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Afuah, A.; Tucci, C.L. Internet Business Models and Strategies; McGraw Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  127. Gelbmann, U.; Hammerl, B. Integrative re-use systems as innovative business models for devising sustainable product–service-systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 97, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Osterwalder, A. The Business Model Ontology: A Proposition in a Design Science Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Universite de Lausanne Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  129. Prause, G. Sustainable business models and structures for INDUSTRY 4.0. J. Secur. Sustain. Issues 2015, 5, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Stocka, F.T.; Obenaus, M.; Kunz, S.; Kohl, A.H. Industry 4.0 as enabler for a sustainable development: A qualitative assessment of its ecological and social potential. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 118, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Martínez-Olvera, C.; Mora-Vargas, J. A Comprehensive Framework for the Analysis of Industry 4.0 Value Domains. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Clark, T.; Smith, A. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-470-87641-1. [Google Scholar]
  133. Seliger, G. Sustainability Engineering by Product-Service Systems. In Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing, Proceedings of the 18th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Braunschweig, Germany, 2–4 May 2011; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 22–28. [Google Scholar]
  134. Martínez-Olvera, C. An Entropy-Based Formulation for Assessing the Complexity Level of a Mass Customization Industry 4.0 Environment. Math. Probl. Eng. 2020, 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Li, W. Efficiency of Manufacturing Processes Energy and Ecological Perspective, Sustainable Production. In Life Cycle Engineering and Management Series; Herrmann, C., Ed.; Springer: Braunschweig, Germany; Sami Kara: Sydney, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Hsu, C.; Rattner, L.; Pant, S. Manufacturing Information using a Reference Model. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 1994, 14, 52–72. [Google Scholar]
  137. Hsu, C.; Rattner, L.; Cho, J.; Yee, L. Core Information Model: A Practical Solution to Costly Integration Problems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 1995, 28, 523–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Fan-Tien, C.; Yang, H.C.; Kuo, T.L.; Feng, C.; Jeng, M.D. Modeling and analysis of equipment managers in manufacturing execution systems for semiconductor packaging. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern. 2000, 30, 772–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Malhotra, R.; Jayaraman, S. An Integrated Framework for Enterprise Modeling. J. Manuf. Syst. 1992, 11, 426–441. [Google Scholar]
  140. Huff, P.B.; Liles, D. A Comprehensive Enterprise Architecture for Small Manufacturers. In Proceedings of the 2nd Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 26–28 May 1993. [Google Scholar]
  141. Cosenz, F.; Rodrigues, V.P.; Rosati, F. Dynamic business modeling for sustainability: Exploring a system dynamics perspective to develop sustainable business models. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 651–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Suh, C.J.; Lee, I.T. An Empirical Study on the Manufacturing Firm’s Strategic Choice for Sustainability in SMEs. Sustainability 2018, 10, 572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Meyer, W. Expert Systems in Factory Management: Knowledge-Based CIM; Ellis Horwood Limited: Chichester, UK, 1990; ISBN 0-13-293473-6. [Google Scholar]
  144. ESPRIT Consortium AMICE. CIMOSA: Open Systems Architecture for CIM. In Research Reports of ESPRIT Project 688; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1989; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  145. Pontow, S. Modelling CSP Solution Algorithms with Petri Decision Nets. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming-CP98, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, Pisa, Italy, 26–30 October 1998; Proceedings Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; ISBN 3-540-65224-8. [Google Scholar]
  146. Dean, P.R.; Tu, Y.L.; Xue, D. A framework for generating product production information for mass customization. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2008, 38, 1244–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Soltysova, Z.; Bednar, S. Complexity management in terms of mass customized manufacturing. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2015, 12, 139–149. [Google Scholar]
  148. Boer, H.E.E.; Nielsen, K.; Brunoe, T.D. Can the SME Successfully Adopt Mass Customization? In Customization 4.0, Proceedings of the 9th World Mass Customization & Personalization Conference (MCPC 2017), Aachen, Germany, 20–21 November 2017; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics: Berlin, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  149. Daaboul, J.; Bernard, A.; Laroche, F. Extended Value Chain Modelling and Simulation for Mass Customization Implementation. In Proceedings of the DET2009 6th International Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology, Hong Kong, China, 14–16 December 2009. [Google Scholar]
  150. Daaboul, A.; Bernard, A.; Laroche, F. Extended value network modelling and simulation for mass customization implementation. J. Intell. Manuf. 2012, 23, 2427–2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Modrak, V.; Marton, D.; Bednar, S. The Influence of Mass Customization Strategy on Configuration Complexity of Assembly Systems. Procedia CIRP 2015, 33, 538–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Shu, L.; Yang, L. A Modified PSO to Optimize Manufacturers Production and Delivery. JSW 2012, 7, 2325–2332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Baykasoglu, A.; Subulan, K.; Güçdemir, H.; Dudaklı, N.; Akyol, D.E. Revenue management for make-to-order manufacturing systems with a real-life application. Eng. Econ. 2019, 65, 27–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Lee, C.H.; Chen, C.H.; Lin, C.; Fan, L.; Zhao, X. Developing a Quick Response Product Configuration System under Industry 4.0 Based on Customer Requirement Modelling and Optimization Method. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Miltenburg, J.; Saparling, D. Managing and reducing total cycle time: Models and analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1996, 46, 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Safar, L.; Sopko, J.; Bednar, S.; Poklemba, R. Concept of SME Business Model for Industry 4.0 Environment. TEM J. 2018, 7, 626–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Kiangala, K.S.; Wang, Z. Initiating predictive maintenance for a conveyor motor in a bottling plant using industry 4.0 concepts. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 97, 3251–3271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Issa, A.; Hatiboglu, B.; Bildstein, A.; Bauernhans, T. Industrie 4.0 roadmap: Framework for digital transformation based on the concepts of capability maturity and alignment. Procedia CIRP 2018, 72, 973–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Muhammad, I.; Hameed, W.; Haque, A. Influence of Industry 4.0 on the Production and Service Sectors in Pakistan: Evidence from Textile and Logistics Industries. Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 246. [Google Scholar]
  160. Muller, J.M.; Kiel, D.; Voigt, K.I. What drives the implementation of Industry 4.0? The role of opportunities and challenges in the context of sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Weinert, N.; Chiotellis, S.; Seliger, G. Methodology for planning and operating energy-efficient production systems. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2011, 60, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Muller, J.; Dotzauer, V.; Voigt, K. (Eds.) Supply Management Research; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2017; pp. 165–179. [Google Scholar]
  163. Tseng, M.L.; Tan, R.R.; Chiu, A.S.F.; Chien, C.F.; Kuo, T.C. Circular economy meets industry 4.0: Can big data drive industrial symbiosis? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 131, 146–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Horvath, D.; Szabó, R.Z. Driving forces and barriers of Industry 4.0: Do multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities? Technol Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 146, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Sartal, A.; Carou, D.; Dorado-Vicente, R. Facing the challenges of the food industry: Might additive manufacturing be the answer? Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2019, 233, 1902–1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Dalenogare, L.S.; Benitez, G.B.; Ayala, N.F.; Frank, A.G. The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 204, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Shrouf, F.; Ordieres, J.; Miragliotta, G. Smart factories in Industry 4.0: A review of the concept and of energy management approached in production based on the Internet of Things paradigm. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia, 9–12 December 2014; pp. 697–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q. Environmental Sustainability and Production: Taking the Road Less Traveled. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 743–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Robert, K.W.; Parris, T.M.; Leiserowitz, A.A. What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2005, 47, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Bai, C.; Dallasega, P.; Orzes, G.; Sarkis, J. Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: A sustainability perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 229, 107776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Beltrami, M.; Orzes, G. Industry 4.0 and sustainability: A systematic literature review. In Decision Sciences in a Connected World, Proceedings of the 10th Annual EDSI Conference, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 9 October 2019; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics: Berlin, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The CPPR framework, based on [91].
Figure 1. The CPPR framework, based on [91].
Automation 03 00010 g001
Figure 3. Sustainable CPPR 4.0 Framework (author’s original).
Figure 3. Sustainable CPPR 4.0 Framework (author’s original).
Automation 03 00010 g003
Figure 4. Value creation definition, economic value perspective (author’s original).
Figure 4. Value creation definition, economic value perspective (author’s original).
Automation 03 00010 g004
Figure 5. Traditional and flexible strategy, based on the work of [134].
Figure 5. Traditional and flexible strategy, based on the work of [134].
Automation 03 00010 g005
Figure 6. (a) Smart products, based on the work of [134]. (b) Smart machines, based on the work of [135].
Figure 6. (a) Smart products, based on the work of [134]. (b) Smart machines, based on the work of [135].
Automation 03 00010 g006
Figure 7. The SC C4 concept, based on the work of [89].
Figure 7. The SC C4 concept, based on the work of [89].
Automation 03 00010 g007
Figure 8. Communication ability (author’s original).
Figure 8. Communication ability (author’s original).
Automation 03 00010 g008
Figure 9. Collaboration ability (author’s original).
Figure 9. Collaboration ability (author’s original).
Automation 03 00010 g009
Figure 10. Coordination ability (GRAI net structure).
Figure 10. Coordination ability (GRAI net structure).
Automation 03 00010 g010
Table 2. Elements of Cosenz’s SBMC [141], based on the work of [142].
Table 2. Elements of Cosenz’s SBMC [141], based on the work of [142].
VALUEECONOMICENVIRONMENTALSOCIAL
PropositionEconomic valueFunctional valueSocial value
Creation IKey ActivitiesProductionGovernance
Key PartnersSuppliersLocal Community
Creation IIKey ResourcesMaterialsEmployees
Key PartnersSuppliersLocal Community
DeliveryCustomers’ Segments & RelationshipsUse & End-of-Life CycleSociety Culture
Distribution ChannelsDistributionScale of Outreach
CaptureValue StreamEnvironmental BenefitsSocial Benefits.
Cost StructureEnvironmental ImpactsSocial Impacts
Sustainability IndicatorProduct InnovationEmission reductionHuman diversity
Risk management
Profit
Natural resource management
Environmental management
Human rights
Labor relations
Cost savingsEnvironmental assessment
Eco-EnvironmentalEnergy efficiencyX
Life cycle management
Socio-EnvironmentalXClient safety & health
Global climate change
Socio-EconomicCustomer EthicsXSecurity
Table 4. Smart process, based on the work of [134].
Table 4. Smart process, based on the work of [134].
ProductTransformation Activities SequenceSequence Option #
M4M14
PA2nd (50%) 1
2nd (50%)2
1st & 2nd (100%)3
1/32/3# sequences fulfilled
PB3rd (33.33%) 1
3rd (33.33%)2
3rd (33.33%) 3
3rd (33.33%)4
1st & 3rd (66.66%)5
1st & 3rd (66.66%)6
2/64/6# sequences fulfilled
PC4th (25%) 1
4th (25%)2
4th (25%) 3
4th (25%)4
1st & 4th (50%)5
1st & 4th (50%)6
2/64/6# sequences fulfilled
Table 5. Value creation relationships (author’s original).
Table 5. Value creation relationships (author’s original).
Question PosedDecision Criteria
Smart productsHow many transformation activities are left in my manufacturing route?Select the resource that provides the
most of these transformation activities.
Smart resourceHow many transformation activities can I provide?Select the product that consumes the
most of these transformation activities.
Smart processWhich combination of product and resource advances
my manufacturing route completion the most?
Select the combination that advances the
most manufacturing routes.
Table 6. GRAI net elements and terminology.
Table 6. GRAI net elements and terminology.
ElementsTerminology
Model mStructure and parameters describing the Decision problem d.
Decision variable dvA vector of the variables of the Decision problem d.
Decision frame dSet of all solutions Sd of the decision center for a given Decision problem d.
Decision center requests rRestrictions issued/constraints imposed on the solution space by a decision center.
Feasible solution SfFor a given Model m, Decision frame d, and Decision center requests r, a set of all instantiations of Decision variable dv.
Evaluation function efFunction which assigns a real value to each feasible solution sf.
Value function vfFunction which combines the values of all Evaluation functions ef, of several Decision objectives do, to define one scalar value for a given Feasible solution sf.
Decision objective doMinimization or maximization of an Evaluation function ef.
Decision rule drFor a given Model m, Decision frame d, Decision center requests r, an algorithm which finds a good Feasible solution Sf with respect to the Decision objective do.
Table 8. Mass customization structural elements, value creation context (author’s original).
Table 8. Mass customization structural elements, value creation context (author’s original).
Mass Customization Structural Elements
[134]
MTO Business Model [155]
SUBCYCLESACTIVITIES
Level of customizationDesignDesign new productsConduct market research
Level of OW/OQAnalyze product technology
Level of product’s complexityDevelop prototype
Design new components
Modify standard design to meet customer requirements
Obtain customer approval for new design
Develop bill of material and process plans
Level of production volumeProductionProduction planning and control
Level of production varietyMaterials management
Level of technificationFabricate parts
Level of labor skillAssemble products
Level of system’s reconfigurationInspection, testing, rework
Level of components/raw materialsInventory finished products
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martínez-Olvera, C. Towards the Development of a Digital Twin for a Sustainable Mass Customization 4.0 Environment: A Literature Review of Relevant Concepts. Automation 2022, 3, 197-222. https://doi.org/10.3390/automation3010010

AMA Style

Martínez-Olvera C. Towards the Development of a Digital Twin for a Sustainable Mass Customization 4.0 Environment: A Literature Review of Relevant Concepts. Automation. 2022; 3(1):197-222. https://doi.org/10.3390/automation3010010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martínez-Olvera, César. 2022. "Towards the Development of a Digital Twin for a Sustainable Mass Customization 4.0 Environment: A Literature Review of Relevant Concepts" Automation 3, no. 1: 197-222. https://doi.org/10.3390/automation3010010

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop