Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Keywords: The purpose of this paper is to understand the hidden connection between Circular Economy (CE) and Industry
Industry 4.0 4.0 in the context of supply chain. The factors responsible for linking CE and Industry 4.0 are studied from two
Circular economy angles viz. from the enablers’ side and barriers’ side. In the paper, twenty-six significant enabling and fifteen
PCA challenging factors are identified which are further factorized using Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
DEMATEL (Most likely)
DEMATEL approach is applied on the factors constructed from PCA. Here, the DEMATEL is applied for three
DEMATEL (pessimistic)
DEMATEL (optimistic)
different sets of data termed as Optimistic, Pessimistic and Most Likely. The paper identified Artificial
Intelligence, Service and Policy Framework, and Circular Economy are significant enablers connecting CE and
Industry 4.0. Similarly, paper reports Interface Designing and Automated Synergy Model as the most significant
challenges to link CE and Industry 4.0 in a supply chain.
⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Management Studies, Vishwakarma Bhavan, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi,
110016, India.
E-mail addresses: shubhanginiahm@gmail.com (S. Rajput), surya.singh@gmail.com (S.P. Singh).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.002
Received 1 November 2018; Received in revised form 5 March 2019; Accepted 7 March 2019
0268-4012/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Industry 4.0 on CE is in its infancy (Jabbour et al., 2018). Finally, linear physical flow of goods from suppliers to retailers. Arora, Raghu,
theory on effects of Industry 4.0 on CE remains fragmented and lacks Vinze, and Brittenham (2006); Fiorini and Jabbour (2017) mentioned
grounding in established theoretical perspectives. In this study, we fo- about self-configuration and self-optimization makes supply chain more
cuses on “cause and effect” relationship among various dimensions of efficient and dynamic. Tan and Wang (2010) identified key features
Industry 4.0 and CE in supply chain and address the following research viz., reliability, scalability, modularity, Quality of Service (QoS), in-
questions: tegration and interoperability, interfacing and networking capabilities,
RQ1: what are the dimensions of Industry 4.0 and CE? security for Industry 4.0. Some of other requirements for Industry 4.0
RQ2: what are the joint effects of the dimensions of Industry 4.0 and implementation are ubiquitous data exchange, monitoring, self- orga-
CE? nization capabilities, security and privacy, interoperability to enhance
We answer our research questions using mixed-methods approach. supply chain efficiency (Miorandi, Sicari, Pellegrini, & Chlamtac, 2012;
Firstly, we obtained the dimensions of Industry 4.0 using exploratory Xu, 2012). Later, Athreya and Tague (2013) laid emphasis on self-or-
factor analysis (EFA). For this, we have gathered 161 usable responses ganisation to achieve network communication among devices which
from Indian manufacturing firms. Further, we performed cause and allows monitoring the system’s functioning. Borgia (2014) and
effect analysis using DEMATEL technique. Monostori (2014) determined essential communication features in
The remaining paper is organized as follows. Section 2 review past terms of reliability and secure connections among different networked
literature on CE and Industry 4.0. Section 3 and 4 provides description devices and components in an Industry 4.0 environment. Tao, Zuo, Xu,
of identified enabling and challenging factors. Section 5 and Section 6 and Zhang (2014) argued that Cloud manufacturing as an application of
describes the proposed methodology to understand the connection of IoT achieves access to manufacturing resources and intelligent per-
CE and Industry 4.0 from enablers and barriers point of view using ception. Pozza, Nati, Georgoulas, Moessner, and Gluhak (2015) ad-
combined approach of PCA and DEMATEL in three variants respec- vocated on the issues of the system failure, predictive maintenance and
tively. Section 7 illustrates the discussion followed by managerial im- service recovery that are considered as an important parameter for
plications and theoretical contributions. Sections 8 presents the con- Industry 4.0. Similarly, Wortmann and Flüchter (2015) also stated that
clusion, limitations and future research directions. changes in the system are essential for the functions of the Industry 4.0
system which supports in recovering the services while reducing the
2. Literature review risk of the system failure. Beigne et al. (2015) mentioned that the
flexibility is a requirement for dynamic management of repro-
Industry 4.0 originally initiated in Germany at Hannover Messe in grammable devices/components in Industry 4.0 to increase platform
2011 (Roblek, Meško, & Krapež, 2016). It is linked to Cyber-Physical capability. In Industry 4.0, visual computing technology is the main
Systems (CPS), Cloud Computing (CC), Internet of Things (IoT) and Big enabler which addresses several aspects such as automatized and flex-
data. The main aim of Industry 4.0 is to achieve accuracy and precision ible production chain (Posada et al., 2015). Datta, Bonnet, and Haerri
as well as to achieve higher degree of automatization (Thames & (2015); Hsu and Lin (2016) and Williams, McMahon, Samtani, Patton,
Schaefer, 2016). Industry 4.0 also brings advancing effects to tradi- and Chen (2017) illustrated that types of applications and devices as-
tional linear economy so that it can be transformed to CE based sus- sists consumers to be more responsive, decision-centric and provides
tainable supply chain. An integrated Industry 4.0 and CE based supply feedback in short duration. Brettel, Fisher, Bendig, Weber, and Wolff
chain would be more flexible, sustainable, self-organized, secured, in- (2016) also stated that self-optimisation is helpful in analysing the
teroperable and highly embedded with Information and Communica- current state of the system which will increase the flexibility of the
tion Technology (Geng & Doberstein, 2008; Mont, 2002). The section system. Besides this, connectivity, storage, Quality of Services (QoS),
provides review on various enabling and limiting factors to implement real-time analytics and benchmark are the key requirements to improve
Industry 4.0 and CE for supply chain. Industry 4.0 services through big data analytics (Ahmed et al., 2017;
Zhong, Newman, Huang, & Lan, 2016). Charro and Scahefer (2018);
2.1. Review on industry 4.0 and circular economy enablers Wang and Ji (2018) addressed that cloud manufacturing as a new type
of Product-Service System and Big data as key towards sustainable
The principle of traditional linear economy model i.e. take-make- competitive advantage. Recently, Hashem et al. (2016); Witkowski
dispose is incapable of managing the supply and demand balance in (2017); Lamba and Singh (2017, 2018); Luthra, Mangla, Shankar, Garg,
consumption of natural resources. This imbalance is affecting the pla- and Jakhar (2018); Mangla et al. (2018); Rajput and Singh (2018);
net’s sustainability as well as affecting the environmental and socio- Gupta, Kar, Baabdullah, and Al-Khowaiter (2018), and Ismagilova,
economic conditions (Elliot, 2011). Some of the related factors of linear Hughes, Dwivedi, and Raman (2019) quoted that IoT, Big data and
economy has demonstrated that it is unsustainable and resulted into a Industry 4.0 are the digital revolutions in production logistics focussed
new paradigm shift i.e. CE. The CE concept was popularized in China in on implementing product, technical, technological and organizational
1990s in perspective of economic growth and natural resource limita- innovation. Baldassare and Ricciardi (2017) and Dilberoglu,
tions (Su, Heshmati, Geng, & Yu, 2013). Previous studies on CE states Gharehpapagh, Yaman, and Dolen (2017) also discussed that Additive
that redesigning of manufacturing systems was mainly focussed and Manufacturing is another component of Industry 4.0.
there was no explicit realization of social aspects in sustainable devel- To promote transition from linear to circular economy in a supply
opment. It was questioned that sustainable development meets the chain (Blunck & Werthmann, 2017) value networks are integrated for
demand of the present without arbitrating the potentials of future transparency which is possible with the aid of Industry 4.0 technology.
generations to meet their own needs. It is still unclear, how CE will Block chain is considered to be one of the technological innovations
meet social dimension and will justify the three pillars of sustainability that drives sustainable supply chain (Sandner, 2018; Weyns,
viz., economic, environment and social. These three important pillars Ramachandran, & Singh, 2018; Kshetri, 2018; Queiroz & Wamba,
are missing from the network of sustainable supply chain and needs 2019). Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) described laws and policy, in-
rigorous attention in the CE (Gray, Kouhy, & Lavers, 1995). The main frastructure building as the practices for sustainable supply chain which
aim of the CE is to gain hold on materials recycling and to balance is also considered important for Industry 4.0. Somers, Dewit, and Baelus
economic and environmental growth (Winans, Kendall, & Deng, 2017). (2018) focussed on product service system in sharing economy to gain
Nowadays, manufacturing industry is undergoing transformation sustainability. Jesus, Antunes, Santos, and Mendonca (2018) also
from linear to circular economy. In this direction, Industry 4.0 is con- mentioned that functional service economy can be achieved by opti-
sidered as key innovative technology. Sherer (2005) stated that supply mizing the usage of goods and services to create the highest possible
chain has its roots in the control of fulfilment activities that supports value for the longer period of time. Kalmykova, Sadagopan, and Rosado
99
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
(2018) presented some sustainable supply chain strategies such as manufacturing cyber-physical systems to the extent that predictive
product service system or product as a service, energy recovery, waste manufacturing systems would become reality. Very recently, Atlam
recovery, infrastructure building/logistics, EIoT which are vital com- et al. (2018) mentioned fog computing as a solution for IoT applications
ponents for Industry 4.0 to design supply chain. Muina, Sanchez, but it has limited capabilities such as networking, computing and
Ferrari, and Blundo (2018) focussed on industrial system integration to storing. It is a geographically distributed computing architecture con-
enable the minimum usage of resources and reuse waste to create nected with heterogeneous devices at the edge of the network but are
economic and environmental benefits. Recently, Lu and Xu (2019) not backed by cloud services to provide storage, computational activ-
addressed that cloud manufacturing can enable on-demand manu- ities on a large scale. Industry 4.0 enhances mobility having IoT support
facturing services via Internet and enhances the cloud based cyber- with privacy and security, but becomes challenging in fog computing
physical production systems. Cardin (2019) mentioned that Cyber- environment. Other challenges in Industry 4.0 are linked with security,
physical production system (CPPS) is a paradigm shift in manufacturing latency, heterogeneity, scalability and resource management. Miorandi
process and delivers the benefits in optimizing the production pro- et al. (2012); Usman and Zhang (2014), and Elkhodr, Shahrestani, and
cesses, resource-efficient production and human-centered production Cheung (2016) listed some other barriers such as interfacing and net-
process. Similarly, Lu, Peng, and Xu (2019) proposed energy-efficient working capabilities, semantic interoperability, and compatibility.
manufacturing architecture in an open CPPS where manufacturing ac- Some of the other works in related areas can be referred from
tivities are self-configured. These findings argued that CPPS is related to Weerakkody, El-Haddadeh, Al-Sobhi, Shareef, and Dwivedi (2013);
the entities of the manufacturing process and has implications on the Hossain and Dwivedi (2014); Alalwan, Dwivedi, and Rana (2017);
customised closed-loop supply chain. Liu et al. (2018) addressed that Shareef, Dwivedi, Kumar, and Kumar (2017); Shiau, Dwivedi, and Yang
human-robot collaboration contributes towards sustainable manu- (2017); Aladwani and Dwivedi (2018); Rana et al. (2018) and Kamboj,
facturing. Industry 4.0 is a digital transformation of manufacturing Sarmah, Gupta, and Dwivedi (2018). The brief description of these
process in which heterogeneous data are shared between the physical identified factors and barriers is presented in Sections 3 and 4 respec-
and real environment. In this perspective, (Alacer & Machado, 2019; tively.
Duan, Edwards, & Dwivedi, 2019; Frank, Dalenogare, & Ayala, 2019) Based on the review, it can be said that work on identifying enablers
the key technologies of Industry 4.0 are Industrial Internet of Things and barriers for CE and Industry 4.0 has been done a lot. However, a
(IIoT), Cloud computing (CC), Big data, Simulation, Augmented Reality, relationship among these enablers and barriers to link Industry 4.0 and
Additive Manufacturing, Horizontal and Vertical Systems Integration, CE to implement supply chain is not established. There is need of es-
Autonomous Robots, and Cyber-security. In a similar manner, Industry tablishing the relations between CE and Industry 4.0 for sustainable
4.0 and Circular Economy barriers are discussed in the next section. supply chain. Therefore, the paper aims to identify driving enablers and
barriers as well as to establish linear relationships among the Industry
2.2. Review on industry 4.0 and circular economy barriers 4.0 and CE enablers and barriers for supply chain.
On the other hand, Industry 4.0 barriers are also identified that pose 3. Enabling factors to connect CE and industry 4.0
various challenges in implementing Industry 4.0 for circular economy
based supply chain. Zhou, Liu, and Zhou (2015) has listed some chal- The factors identified through literature review and experts’ opi-
lenges of Industry 4.0 such as Data analysis, Collaborative model, CPS nions are presented in tabular form in Table 1 with their citing refer-
standards and specifications, CPS modeling and modeling integration, ences to maintain the objectivity of the study.
smart devices development, investment cost. CPS considers physical
and real world components and uses different computing models. The 4. Challenging factors to connect CE and industry 4.0
calculation process uses discrete logical time and physical processes use
continuous physical time. Therefore, it is difficult to use different From literature review and experts’ opinions, fifteen challenging
computing models to build a CPS modelling with a consolidated fra- factors to link CE and Industry 4.0 are identified and presented in
mework. Besides, CPS also works with heterogeneous devices/compo- tabular form in Table 2 with their citing references.
nents and deals with voluminous data which makes its behaviour more
complex. Therefore, uniform standards and specifications of the CPS is 5. Cause and effect analysis of enablers for CE and industry 4.0
required and is considered as a huge challenge. Industry 4.0 factory
works intelligently and smartly with artificial and smart/IoT devices This section presents modelling CE and Industry 4.0 enablers in
which minimizes the human involvement. However, different factories supply chain (CE-SCM) using PCA and DEMATEL to understand the
requires different smart devices development and configurations which connection between CE and Industry 4.0.
require investment cost and time before it is implemented in any of the
smart factory. Schutze, Helwig, and Schneider (2018) reviewed that 5.1. Factorization using PCA
sensor technology allows smart data generation and allows function-
ality of self-monitoring and self-configuration. Hence, Industry 4.0 is Twenty six factors identified for Industry 4.0 in Section 3 are fac-
not possible without sensor technology as their operations has the torized using PCA. Following are the steps:
ability to capture data, detect errors and failures and communicates
smartly with the smart devices. 5.1.1. Data validation and reliability analysis
Similarly, Leitao, Colombo, and Karnouskos (2016) has also figured In this paper, data is collected from leading Industry 4.0 area ex-
out some barriers related to the design, compatibility, and infra- pertise of manufacturing sector and academicians through online
structure standardisation. Standardising or designing the infrastructure survey. It resulted in 179 returned questionnaires out of 200. Further
to handle computational intensive tasks and to develop self-adaptation data cleaning was done by applying case wise replacements. Since, data
functionality becomes complex. Schmacher et al. (2016) mentioned was missing and systemically some of the questionnaires were removed
that production processes are digitized and automatized with the sup- from the sample. To apply PCA, the thumb rule for the minimum
port of disruptive technologies. IoT devices leverage the concept of sample size in relation to the number of variables is the sample size
mobility for improving time, reducing cost, and develop consumer- should be larger than five times the number of variables (Shaukat, Rao,
manufacturers interconnection. Therefore, implementing disruptive & Khan, 2016). Concretely, the sample size of 161 is considered for
technologies and its training is one of the most difficult barriers for a factorizing the twenty-six variables using PCA. Further, reliability test is
smart factory. Babiceanu and Seker (2016) addressed virtualization for conducted to assess the errors and overall consistency of the datasets
100
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Table 1
List of Factors.
Sl. No. Factors Description Authors
1. Reliability It is the system’s ability to work together with heterogeneous devices/ Borgia (2014); Monostori (2014); Tan and Wang (2010)
components and it will not fail for a specified operating period under
stated conditions.
2. Scalability Scalability of the system has the capability to manage increased load of Tan and Wang (2010)
large data and applications under extreme environment.
3. Modularity It emphasizes the system’s components for interchangeability. It Tan and Wang (2010)
indicates that components are capable to serve the technical or
production functions independently.
4. Quality of Service (QoS) It has the capability to provide better service over the congested Ahmed et al. (2017);Tan and Wang (2010); Zhong et al. (2016)
network (bandwidth delay). It involves in managing network resources
by setting priorities for different data types.
5. Integration and It integrates low power communication technologies to enhance system Tan and Wang (2010)
interoperability robustness as well as to develop semantics among devices connected in a
network to provide data in standardized formats for efficient
communication.
6. Self-organisation and This feature enables the system to retrieve data from heterogeneous Athreya and Tague (2013);Miorandi et al. (2012); Xu (2012);
adaptation devices in required format and to monitor the system’s functioning.
7. Predictive Maintenance It detects the changes in the condition of the system i.e., down time, Pozza et al. (2015); Wortmann and Flüchter (2015)
and recovery service reliability, updating, detecting errors, addresses failures to carry
out maintenance services.
8. Flexibility It ensures the system to respond when internal or external changes Beigne et al. (2015)
occur. When any reprogrammable devices or plug-in is integrated into
the system it responds dynamically and increases the systems efficiency.
9. Visual Computing It acquires, analyse, and synthesize visual data by means of computers Posada et al. (2015)
that provides automation and flexibility to the production process.
10. CIoT It lies in the types of applications/devices and the technologies which Datta et al. (2015); Hsu and Lin (2016) and Williams et al. (2017)
drives consumers and their purpose. This assists consumers to be more
responsive, shorter feedback loops, and can take decentralized decisions
among consumers.
11. Self-configure and It co-ordinates with other networked heterogeneous devices for Arora et al. (2006); Fiorini and Jabbour (2017)
routable information sharing between source and destination.
12. Self-optimisation It acquires the current state of the system as well as of the system’s Arora et al. (2006); Brettel et al. (2016); Fiorini and Jabbour
environment and adapts its behaviour accordingly. (2017)
13. Value networks It is a collaborative relationship that develops tangible and intangible Blunck and Werthmann (2017)
values through potential networks between two or more entities.
14. Block chain It maintains immutable information of products and processes Kshetri (2018); Sandner (2018); Queiroz and Wamba (2019)
throughout the supply chain, and regulates financial flow within the
supply chain.
15. Laws and Policy It is required for the plastics, chemical waste and product legislation. It Govindan and Hasanagic (2018),
aims to focus on the eco-design, eco-innovation and quality standard
products.
16. Infrastructure building It is required for implementation of technical equipment and facilities is Govindan and Hasangic (2018); Kalmykova et al. (2018)
required to develop agile and automated supply chain.
17. Product Service System It has the ability to reduce environmental impacts of both production Somers et al. (2018); Kalmykova et al. (2018)
and consumption. It more emphasized towards the consumer stage of
the product life cycle.
18. Functional Service It optimizes the use of goods and services while consuming less energy Jesus et al. (2018)
Economy or resources to increase the usage value to a maximum limit for the
longest period.
19. Industrial System It enables the network to exchange resources or by-products, and allows Muina et al. (2018)
Integration the sharing of utilities, and to ensure minimum usage of resources, cost
reduction and creates economic and environmental benefits.
20. EIoT It can monitor soil, water, humidity, wind, temperature etc. providing Kalmykova et al. (2018)
on-line and real-time environment information.
21. Energy recovery It is an alternative for those waste products which cannot be sustainably Frank et al. (2019); Kalmykova et al. (2018)
recycled in an eco-efficient manner.
22. Waste recovery It is helpful in aggregating waste into meaningful volumes and Kalmykova et al. (2018)
facilitating the re-use of waste products to enhance environmental and
social effectiveness.
23. Cloud manufacturing It assists in full sharing, high usage and on-demand use of distributed Alacer and Machado (2019); Charro and Scahefer (2018); Lu and
manufacturing resources in a centralized way. Xu (2019);Tao et al. (2014); Wang and Ji (2018)
24. Big data It has the capability to store, manage and analyse the high variety, high Witkowski (2017); Lamba and Singh (2017, 2018); Luthra et al.
volume, high velocity sets of data. It has the ability to enhance the (2018); Mangla et al. (2018); Gupta et al. (2018); Alacer and
supply chain visibility, adapt itself under the dynamic environment. Machado (2019); Frank et al. (2019)
25. CPPS It involves autonomous and coordinating sub-systems which are Cardin (2019); Lu et al. (2019)
connected with each other dependently across all levels of
manufacturing process. It provides the communication link among
humans, machines and products and interact with the physical world via
interfaces.
26. Collaborative robotics It is intended to develop physical interaction between robots and Alacer and Machado (2019); Frank et al. (2019)
humans in collaborative workspace. It provides an added incentive in
achieving quality production, accuracy and precision in manufacturing
process.
101
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Table 2
List of challenging factors.
Sl. No. Barriers Description Authors
1. Data analysis As large amount of data gets capture in different formats, analysing data and making informed Tan, Vuran, and Goddard (2009)
decisions using analytics.
2. Collaborative model It is required for direct interaction with the humans and also designed robots offers safety work to Tan et al. (2009)
the humans within a defined workspace.
3. CPS standards and specifications It is required for the validation to ensure that the system is capable to handle the specific Tan et al. (2009)
requirements.
4. CPS modeling and modeling CPS model interacts between the physical and virtual world and also involves the physical and Tan et al. (2009)
integration computing components. Therefore CPS requires different computing models with a unified
framework.
5. Smart devices development Different advanced and smart devices are required to communicate in Industry 4.0 environment to Tan et al. (2009)
reduce the human- intervention.
6. Investment cost It is required to standardise the infrastructure and develop smart devices. Tan et al. (2009)
7. Design It is required to design model and to include CPS-enabled landscapes. Leitao et al. (2016)
8. Compatibility It keeps the system’s components working together in a functioning environment without Leitao et al. (2016); Elkhodr
implementing any changes to the system. et al. (2016)
9. Infrastructure standardisation Infrastructure is required to equip the advance technologies. It is required to integrate the Leitao et al. (2016)
heterogeneous devices/components in automation systems.
10. Interfacing and Networking It enables underlying wireless technologies and sensor technology to interface with the physical Elkhodr et al. (2016)
world.
11. Semantic interoperability To execute the transaction of data between the two or more machines, a protocol is required for Elkhodr et al. (2016)
different devices for efficient and effective communication.
12. Process digitization and Industry 4.0 induces mobility in the processes and reduces the cost, computerizes the production Schumacher, Selim, and Wilfried
automation processes and implements new disruptive technologies. (2016)
13. Automation system It maximizes the real-time visibility of the operation processes which offers reliable and efficient Babiceanu and Seker (2016)
virtualization solutions.
14. Fog computation It provides data storage and processing services locally to fog devices rather than storing on cloud. Atlam, Walters, and Wills (2018)
15. Sensor technology Industry 4.0 requires sensor based technology such as RFID to capture the large amount of Schutze et al. (2018)
information to communicate with other devices smartly.
using SPSS. The Cronbach’s alpha for the dataset found to be 0.849 Hence, twenty-six factors are factorized into six principal compo-
ensuring the data is reliable for analysis. nents or enabling factors. These six enabling factors are named as
Artificial Intelligence (E1), Manufacturing Ecosystem (E2), Service and
5.1.2. Exploratory factor analysis Policy Framework (E3), Circular Economy (E4), Network Agility (E5)
PCA using varimax rotation is applied to the datasets. Here, Kaiser- and Self- automation (E6). Further, DEMATEL is applied on these en-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures the sampling adequacy to provide the ablers for cause-effect relationship.
appropriateness of the data and Bartletts Test of Sphericity verifies that
obtained correlation matrix has an identity matrix and its associated p- 5.2. Cause and effect analysis using DEMATEL
value < 0.001. The following result obtained indicates that PCA can be
applied. Here, DEMATEL is applied to design and analyse structural model of
causal-effect relationship of CE and Industry 4.0 for sustainable supply
5.1.3. Analysis of Eigenvalues and variance chain. Recent work of Rajput and Singh (2018) and Lamba and Singh
The KMO value of 0.798 in the Table 3 illustrates that factors can be (2018) can be referred for the detailed analysis. DEMATEL classifies
easily extracted. Based on the results of reliability test and KMO test, variables into cause and effect groups and forms the structural model.
the eigenvalues is computed from the factor analysis. It measures the Here, the cause and effect relationship are interpreted using three ap-
amount of variation in the total sample accounted for by each factor. proaches viz. Average, Pessimistic and Optimistic aggregation ap-
For first factor, eigenvalue and extraction sum of squared loadings proach. Following sections describes these approaches using DEMATEL.
equals 7.031 and represents 27.041% of the total variability. Similarly,
for results of other factors are shown in Table 4.
5.2.1. Cause-effect analysis using DEMATEL (most likely)
In this approach, experts’ opinions are aggregated using arithmetic
5.1.4. Correlation analysis
mean. The calculations involved are shown in the following steps.
The following Table 5 illustrates the component matrix using var-
imax rotation. On applying PCA, 6 components are formed.
The following Table 6 illustrates the rotated component matrix and • Experts’ opinion and calculate the average matrix A
referred as the loadings.
The first step in this process is to gather the experts’ opinion and
It shows the correlations estimates between each of the identified
develop the pair-wise contextual relationships between identified
factors and the estimated components. The highlighted cells depicts the
variables on a scale of 0–4 where, 0 represents ‘no influence’ and 4
factor loadings on the extracted principal components respectively.
represents the ‘very high influence’. For each expert, n*n positive ma-
trix, X k = [x ijk ] is formed. The average matrix A can be constructed
Table 3
using Eq. (1).
KMO and Bartletts test results.
K
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.798 1
A = [a ij] = x ijk
K k=1 (1)
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 7580.638
Df 325
Sig. 0.000 Table 7 demonstrates initial direct average relation matrix derived
from the above given formula.
102
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Table 4
Eigenvalues and % of Variance from PCA.
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Table 5 Table 6
Component Matrix. Rotated Component Matrix.
Componenta Componenta
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Block chain .128 −.066 .089 .084 .045 .788 Block chain .099 −.024 −.033 −.032 .047 .802
Collaborative robotics .938 −.083 .092 .158 −.111 −.022 Collaborative robotics .960 .044 −.054 −.073 .012 .032
Visual computing .014 .028 .082 .189 .041 .736 Visual computing .009 −.005 .117 −.015 −.001 .757
Industrial System −.255 .523 .320 .739 .006 −.040 Industrial System −.082 .072 .981 .108 −.005 .047
Integration Integration
Functional Service System −.263 .553 .335 .679 .067 −.050 Functional Service System −.113 .131 .953 .110 .053 .033
Big data −.271 .485 .311 .751 .009 −.066 Big data −.094 .043 .978 .077 −.012 .022
Cloud Manufacturing −.227 .490 .343 .748 .006 −.065 Cloud Manufacturing −.048 .046 .980 .090 .015 .026
Laws and Policy .935 −.075 .123 .205 −.098 −.035 Laws and Policy .968 .037 .000 −.087 .029 .027
Infrastructure building .939 −.066 .149 .171 −.153 −.029 Infrastructure building .979 .012 −.018 −.024 .035 .029
QoS .953 −.051 .112 .124 −.137 −.028 QoS .975 .057 −.065 −.020 .026 .023
Predictive Maintenance .943 .030 .093 .140 −.114 −.011 Predictive Maintenance .956 .129 −.024 −.001 .009 .040
and Recovery and Recovery
Product Service System .966 −.070 .072 .063 −.110 −.026 Product Service System .965 .085 −.138 −.039 .026 .017
Integration and −.101 .663 .269 −.364 −.521 .056 Integration and −.063 .166 .066 .944 .041 −.002
Interoperability Interoperability
Self-optimisation −.024 .716 .279 −.362 −.498 .050 Self-optimisation .004 .232 .079 .953 .059 −.004
Self-configuring −.137 .648 .315 −.337 −.533 .039 Self-configuring −.083 .120 .106 .949 .065 −.015
Self-organisation and −.134 .680 .299 −.305 −.539 .000 Self-organisation and −.073 .139 .142 .951 .039 −.051
adaptation adaptation
Reliability .307 .803 −.255 −.174 .347 −.004 Reliability .111 .953 .057 .171 −.035 −.021
Scalability .323 .791 −.292 −.129 .350 .014 Scalability .129 .953 .072 .134 −.079 .000
Modularity .276 .777 −.310 −.174 .386 .005 Modularity .067 .966 .034 .117 −.062 −.015
Flexibility .253 .808 −.291 −.113 .361 .001 Flexibility .063 .951 .107 .135 −.080 −.013
Value networks .266 .793 −.295 −.175 .377 .024 Value networks .060 .966 .045 .139 −.056 .004
CPPS .067 −.075 .801 −.325 .320 −.141 CPPS .062 −.069 −.023 .086 .923 −.110
EIoT .959 −.028 .097 .052 −.096 −.023 EIoT .955 .116 −.120 −.013 .054 .021
CIoT .021 −.069 .827 −.306 .378 −.056 CIoT .009 −.055 .006 .059 .961 -.021
Waste recovery .015 −.103 .837 −.261 .357 .000 Waste recovery .016 −.103 .027 .044 .945 .039
Energy recovery .079 −.081 .797 −.214 .398 .114 Energy recovery .064 −.045 .039 .001 .913 .159
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax
a. 6 components extracted. with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
103
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Table 7 Table 10
Initial direct average relation matrix A. The direct and indirect influences.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Row Sum S.No. Enablers D R D+R D-R
E1 0.000 3.400 3.200 3.600 3.200 3.200 16.600 1. Artificial Intelligence (E1) 0.462 0.265 0.727 0.196
E2 1.400 0.000 1.600 1.600 1.200 1.600 7.400 2. Manufacturing Ecosystem (E2) 0.102 0.266 0.368 −0.164
E3 3.800 3.000 0.000 3.000 3.200 3.000 16.000 3. Service and Policy Framework (E3) 0.441 0.199 0.640 0.242
E4 4.000 3.000 2.400 0.000 3.000 2.400 14.800 4. Circular Economy (E4) 0.392 0.196 0.588 0.195
E5 1.200 0.800 2.000 0.400 0.000 1.600 6.000 5. Network Agility (E5) 0.072 0.284 0.356 −0.212
E6 0.800 0.600 1.000 0.600 0.800 0.000 3.800 6. Self-automation (E6) 0.028 0.286 0.314 −0.258
Column Sum 11.200 10.800 10.200 9.200 11.400 11.800
• Calculating the direct-relation matrix D 5.2.3. Causal- effect analysis using DEMATEL (optimistic)
In this approach, experts’ opinions are aggregated using maximum
This step obtains normalize direct relation matrix D given in
value. Table 12 shows direct and indirect influences of the enablers.
Table 8, from the matrix A given at Table 7 using Eqs. (2) and (3):
Appendix A shows all calculations required in DEMATEL (Optimistic).
D = A/ s, s> 0 (2) On the basis of the computed values of (D + R) and (D–R) causal dia-
Where, gram is constructed and is shown in Fig. 3.
n
6. Cause and effect analysis of barriers for CE and industry 4.0
n
s = max i, j [ aij , max j aij]
i=1
j=1 (3) This section presents the cause and effect analysis of challenging
factors in linking CE and Industry 4.0 applying the similar approach
• Calculating total relation matrix T used in previous section.
The next step is to obtain the total relation matrix T shown in 6.1. Cluster formation using PCA
Table 9 using Eq. (4) and is calculated to realize the direct or indirect
relationship between the variables. Here, the results of this study are used to evaluate the Industry 4.0
T = D (I D 1) (4) related issues for CE on its implementation. Similarly, data was col-
lected from leading Industry 4.0 area expertise of manufacturing sector
Where, I is an n*n identity matrix and academicians through online survey. It resulted in 85 returned
questionnaires out of 120 and data cleaning was done.
• Calculating the sum of rows and columns of Matrix T Concretely, the sample size of 76 is considered for factorizing the
fifteen challenging factors using PCA. Further, reliability test is con-
In Table 7, the row and column sum are represented by vectors D ducted to assess the errors and overall consistency of the datasets using
and R respectively. Let Di be the sum of ith row in matrix T. The value SPSS. The Cronbach’s alpha for the dataset found to be 0.841 ensuring
of Di indicates the total given both direct and indirect effects, that the data is reliable and can be used for further analysis.
variable i has on other variables. Let Rj be the sum of the jth column in PCA is applied to factorize the challenging factors. The Cronbach’s
matrix T. The value of Rj shows the total received both direct and in- alpha value calculated for the dataset is 0.811 which ensures the re-
direct effects, that all other variables have on variable j. Table 10 shows liability of the data. Table 13 illustrate the results obtained for KMO,
the values of direct and indirect influences. eigenvalues and correlation analysis.
The KMO value of 0.811 illustrates that challenging factors can be
• Constructing a cause and effect relationship diagram easily extracted. Based on the results of reliability test and KMO test,
the eigenvalues is computed from the factor analysis. It measures the
amount of variation in the total sample accounted for by each chal-
Table 9 lenging factors. For first challenging factor, eigenvalue and loadings
Total Relation Matrix T. equals 5.676 and represents 37.842% of the total variability. Similarly,
for other factors the following result is obtained and illustrated in
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
Table 14.
E1 0.000 0.096 0.086 0.095 0.091 0.094
E2 0.019 0.000 0.022 0.021 0.016 0.024 6.1.1. Correlation analysis
E3 0.111 0.080 0.000 0.074 0.090 0.085 Table 15 provides the component matrix using varimax rotation. On
E4 0.115 0.078 0.057 0.000 0.080 0.062
applying PCA, 5 components are formed.
E5 0.014 0.008 0.026 0.003 0.000 0.021
E6 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.004 0.006 0.000 The following Table 16 illustrates the rotated component matrix and
referred as the loadings.
104
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Fig. 1. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 enablers using DEMATEL (Most Likely).
Table 11 Table 12
The direct and indirect influences (Pessimistic). The direct and indirect influences (Optimistic).
S.No. Enablers D R D+R D-R S.No. Enablers D R D+R D-R
1. Artificial Intelligence (E1) 0.293 0.151 0.444 0.142 1. Artificial Intelligence (E1) 0.557 0.272 0.828 0.285
2. Manufacturing Ecosystem (E2) 0.013 0.121 0.134 −0.108 2. Manufacturing Ecosystem (E2) 0.151 0.346 0.497 0.151
3. Service and Policy Framework (E3) 0.132 0.113 0.245 0.018 3. Service and Policy Framework (E3) 0.552 0.299 0.850 0.552
4. Circular Economy (E4) 0.208 0.056 0.264 0.152 4. Circular Economy (E4) 0.513 0.273 0.785 0.240
5. Network Agility (E5) 0.026 0.121 0.147 −0.095 5. Network Agility (E5) 0.100 0.417 0.517 −0.317
6. Self-automation (E6) 0.000 0.109 0.109 −0.109 6. Self-automation (E6) 0.101 0.367 0.467 −0.266
It shows the correlations estimates between each of the identified 6.2.3. Cause- effect analysis using DEMATEL (optimistic)
challenging factors and the estimated components. The direct influence matrix for barriers is shown in Table 19. Fig. 6
Hence, fifteen challenging factors are factorized into four barriers. shows the causal diagram of CE and Industry 4.0 barriers.
For DEMATEL analysis, these four barriers are named as Interface de-
signing (B1), Technology Upgradation (B2), Automated Synergy model 7. Discussion
(B3) and Fog computation (B4).
This section presents the common significant driving enablers and
6.2. Cause-effect analysis using DEMATEL barriers across the three different data sets obtained from the survey,
then applying the combined approach of PCA and DEMATEL. As
Here, DEMATEL is applied for barriers using three different ap- mentioned, PCA is applied to factorize the twenty-six identified factors
proaches of aggregation techniques. The detailed calculations of the and fifteen identified challenges respectively which are similar to each
matrices for all variants of DEMATEL is provided in Appendix B. These other. The twenty-six factors are factorized into six enablers and named
are shown in the following sections. as Artificial Intelligence (E1) consists of block chain and visual com-
puting. Second, Manufacturing Ecosystem (E2) consists of industrial
6.2.1. Cause- effect analysis using DEMATEL (most likely) system integration, functional service system, big data and cloud
The direct influence matrix for barriers is shown in Table 17 while manufacturing factors. Factors which consists of collaborative robotics,
Fig. 4 shows the causal diagram. laws and policy, infrastructure building, QoS, predictive maintenance
and recovery, product service system, EIoT are factorized as Service and
6.2.2. Cause- effect analysis using DEMATEL (pessimistic) Policy Framework (E3). The fourth enabler, Circular Economy (E4)
The direct influence matrix for barriers is shown in Table 18. Fig. 5 consists of factors viz., CIoT, waste recovery, energy recovery and
shows the causal diagram of CE and Industry 4.0 barriers. CPPS. The fifth enabler, Network Agility (E5) consists of reliability,
Fig. 2. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 enablers using pessimistic approach.
105
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Fig. 3. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 enablers using optimistic approach.
Table 13 Table 15
KMO and Bartletts test results. Component Matrix.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.811 Component
Table 14
Eigenvalues and % Variance.
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
106
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Table 16 Table 18
Rotated Component Matrix. The direct and indirect influences.
Component S.No. Barriers D R D+R D-R
Fig. 4. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 barriers using average approach.
107
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Fig. 5. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 barriers using pessimistic approach.
Table 19 Industry 4.0 for implementing supply chain which provides the op-
The direct and indirect influences. portunities for resource efficiency and energy recovery. Further, the
S.No. Barriers D R D+R D-R study argues that circular economy and Industry 4.0 are directly linked,
and sustainable supply chain through Industry 4.0 can’t be achieved
1 Interface designing(B1) 0.842 0.515 1.357 0.327 unless the Circular Economy is considered as one of the enabling factor.
2 Technology Upgradation(B2) 0.231 0.668 0.899 0.231
From the perspective of managerial implications, the identified
3 Automated Synergy model(B3) 0.842 0.515 1.357 0.842
4 Fog computation(B4) 0.138 0.747 0.885 −0.609
Industry 4.0 enablers can be explored to reduce the transaction cost and
induces the symbiotic relationship in the business organization. To link
circular economy and Industry 4.0, new business models with sharing
(Optimistic) approaches of the integrated techniques. Finally, Eq. (12) economy can be designed with different approaches to have insights on
provides the most common barrier i.e. Interface designing (B1), and new favorable circumstances to attain sustainable supply chain. This
Automated Synergy model (B3) are the most common barriers found provides a comprehensive overview of the material usage, biodegrad-
from all techniques. Therefore, these challenges could be considered as able, and packaging wastes to the industry practitioners and could
the most consequential barriers for CE and Industry 4.0 for im- implement the circular economy by using pure, high-quality materials
plementing closed loop supply chain. with cross-industry applications. This study has contributed in re-
vealing the positive relationship between the influential driving en-
7.1. Managerial implications ablers of Industry 4.0 and offers extensive benefits in terms of resource
efficiency, integration, interoperability. These benefits are the ante-
This sub-section discusses the managerial implications of the po- cedents of Industry 4.0 which results in improved operational pro-
tential enablers and barriers. The present study provides the sig- ductivity, enhanced efficiency and accuracy.
nificance of CE and Industry 4.0 enablers and barriers which are con-
sidered as pillars for supply chain. With the development of recent 7.2. Theoretical contributions
trends, the industrial systems are moving towards the CE which in-
creases the optimisation of resources and maximises the material re- In viewpoint of theoretical contributions, the key enablers of
covery from wastes. This is also true for implementing Industry 4.0 in Industry 4.0 have the capability to serve the eco-efficiency, eco-effec-
an organization for improving the sustainability in the supply chain. tiveness and eco-design principles which are partially explored. The
The Industry 4.0 enablers identified from the study has the potential to main part of the circular economy implementation is the progress
make the supply chain more sustainable and also revamp the process of monitoring which is under-developed and can be induced with Industry
monitoring the products. From the study carried out, Artificial 4.0 implementation. The prominent Industry 4.0 enablers allow estab-
Intelligence (E1), Service Policy and Framework (E3) and Circular lishing the connection between the material flows and their virtual
economy (E4) are the two most influential or driving enablers in representations throughout the closed loop supply chain. It provides a
Fig. 6. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 barriers using optimistic approach.
108
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
radical change to the manufacturing industry from time, cost and sustainability by adopting IoT to retrieve real-time information which
quality aspects. Further, it is stated that breadth and speed of im- further helps in improving the data collection and sharing the resource
plementing integrated CE- Industry 4.0 not only focuses on the tech- consumption and materials wastage. It further enhances the manu-
nical factors, but also on the environmental, social and economic ones. facturing systems’ accuracy and precision. Industry 4.0 has laid the
Moreover, it also generates greater efficiency in the usage of resources foundation in identifying the failures and errors to optimize the wastes
and energy. Industry 4.0 in CE can improve repair, reuse, and re- and could control the operational performance of sustainable supply
integration of processes, machinery and products. Finally, the logistics chain. The Industry 4.0 enablers identified in this study allows perfor-
optimization is improved which results in flexibility and increased ef- mance monitoring, predictive maintenance and service recovery. The
ficiency of the manufacturing process. circular economy design in sustainable supply chain is adaptable based
Similarly, from the analysis of the barriers that create challenge in on the data provided through cloud manufacturing and IoT. Therefore,
the implementation of closed supply chain in Industry 4.0 environment sustainable supply chain contributes towards implementing the linkage
are found to be Interface designing (B1), and Automated Synergy model between circular economy and Industry 4.0.
(B3). While working on the Industry 4.0 enablers, simultaneously equal Similarly, Interface designing (B1) and Automated Synergy model
attention is also required to the barriers. These barriers will decrease (B3) are appeared as the influential common driving barriers. These
the error in the collaboration between the components of the system identified barriers can affect technical opportunities and communica-
and information exchange. The barriers identified in the initial stage tion network under one ecosystem and could hamper the automation
reduce the risks and failures and allows the industry practitioners to functionality. These barriers are required to be suppressed while im-
make the right decisions at the right time. It guides the system to plementing Industry 4.0 for circular economy so that the CE based
translate the data generated in the required format, providing a precise supply chain could be assisted by maximum agility and flexibility and
knowledge of the current scenario of the closed supply chain in real integration of the networked components. From the barriers perspec-
time. Ultimately, the Industry 4.0 barriers supports in overcoming the tive, Interface designing (B1), and Automated Synergy model (B3)
objective difficulties in managing the supply chain, and innovative should be analysed for implementation that would affect radical in-
business model towards environmental, economic and social aspects. novations in circular economy.
Therefore, the paper contributes in identifying barriers which gives The future research directions of this study is that these identified
leverage to the study as it enables the industry practitioners to cope influential enablers and barriers can be used for mathematical model-
with these inhibitors and would be more focused while implementing ling or optimization models that can optimize industrial practices to
Circular Economy and Industry 4.0 for sustainable supply chain. achieve efficiency gains in terms of profitability and in cost reductions
in resource usage and waste generation. Secondly, empirical explora-
8. Conclusion, limitations and future research directions tion of Industry 4.0 in gaining sustainability and carbon reduction is not
yet fully identified. Third, big data analysis to enhance the industrial
The main aim of this paper is to study the cause-effect relationship system and improvement of the industrial sustainability is yet to be
among six enablers and four barriers. DEMATEL in two variants (pes- identified. Furthermore, there exists some gaps in supply chain net-
simistic, optimistic) are applied to categorize the enablers/barriers into works in the levels of collaboration and inter-dependence which is not
cause and effect groups. It is determined that Artificial Intelligence (E1) elaborated in the paper. Due to the lack of the transparency and opti-
and Circular economy (E4) are identified as the common driving en- mized solutions, business organization cannot achieve efficiency and
ablers. These identified Industry 4.0 enablers provides a favourable effectiveness. In the future, researchers can focus on the Industry 4.0
circumstances to reinforce circular strategies such as remanufacturing, technological gaps to create more empirical results and can further
recycling and also improves the maintainability and extends the life evaluate the application of technologies in actual case studies.
cycle and value of the products. Industry 4.0 contributes towards the
Appendix A. Circular Economy and Industry 4.0 enablers from DEMATEL (Pessimistic)
Tables A1–A6
Table A1
Initial direct average relation matrix A.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Row Sum
Table A2
: Normalized direct relation matrix D.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
109
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Table A3
Total relation matrix T.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
Table A4
Initial direct average relation matrix A.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Row Sum
Table A5
Normalized direct relation matrix D.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
Table A6
Total relation matrix T.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
Appendix B. Circular Economy and Industry 4.0 barriers from DEMATEL (Most Likely)
Tables B1–B9
Table B1
Initial direct average relation matrix A.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Row Sum
110
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Table B2
Normalized direct relation matrix D.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Table B3
Total relation matrix T.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Table B4
Initial direct average relation matrix A.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Row Sum
Table B5
Normalized direct relation matrix D.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Table B6
Total relation matrix T.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Table B7
Initial direct average relation matrix A.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Row Sum
111
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Table B8
Normalized direct relation matrix D.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Table B9
: Total relation matrix T.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
References making in the era of Big Data–evolution, challenges and research agenda.
International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71.
Elkhodr, M., Shahrestani, S., & Cheung, H. (2016). The internet of things : New inter-
Ahmed, E., Yaqoob, I., Abaker, I., Khan, I., Ibrahim, A., Imran, M., et al. (2017). The role operability, management and security challenges. International Journal of Network
of big data analytics in Internet of Things. Computer Networks, 129, 459–471.s. Security & Its Applications, 8(2), 85–102.
Alacer, V., & Machado, V. C. (2019). Scanning the Industry 4.0: A Literature Review on Elliot, S. (2011). Transdisciplinary perspectives on environmental sustainability: A re-
Technologies for Manufacturing Systems. Engineering Science and Technology an source base and framework for IT- enabled business transformation. MIS Quarterly,
International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.01.006. 35(1), 197–236.
Aladwani, A. M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018). Towards a theory of SocioCitizenry: Quality Fiorini, P. C., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2017). Information systems and supply chain man-
anticipation, trust configuration, and approved adaptation of governmental social agement towards a more sustainable society: Where we are and where we are going.
media. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 261–272. International Journal of Information Management, 37, 241–249.
Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Factors influencing adoption of Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. (2019). Industry 4.0 technologies:
mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust. Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. International Journal of
International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 99–110. Production Economics, 210, 15–26.
Arora, H., Raghu, T. S., Vinze, A., & Brittenham, P. (2006). Collaborative self- config- Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges
uration and learning in autonomic computing systems: Applications to supply Chain. and opportunities for achieving “leapfrog development’. The International Journal of
Paper Presented in IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing, 304–319. Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 15(3), 231–239.
Athreya, A., & Tague, P. (2013). Network self-organization in the internet of things. Paper Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and
Presented in IEEE International Workshop of Internet-of-Things Networking and Control, practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. International Journal
25–33. of Production Research, 56(1-2), 278–311.
Atlam, H. F., Walters, R. J., & Wills, G. B. (2018). Fog computing and the internet of Gray, R. H., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting:
things: A review. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 2(10), 1–18. A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting
Babiceanu, R. F., & Seker, R. (2016). Big data and virtualization for manufacturing cyber- Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.
physical systems: A survey of the current status and future outlook. Computers in Gupta, S., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A., & Al-Khowaiter, W. A. (2018). Big data with cog-
Industry, 81, 128–137. nitive computing: A review for the future. International Journal of Information
Balakrishnan, A., Kumara, S. R. T., & Sundaresan, S. (1999). Manufacturing in the digital Management, 43, 112–129.
age: Exploiting information technologies for product realization. Information Systems Hashem, I. A. T., Chang, V., Anuar, N. B., Adewole, K., Yaqoob, I., Gani, A., et al. (2016).
Frontiers, 1(1), 25–50. The role of big data in smart city. International Journal of Information Management,
Baldassare, F., & Ricciardi, F. (2017). The additive manufacturing in the industry 4.0 era: 36(5), 748–758.
The case of an italian FabLab. Journal of Emerging Trends in Marketing and Heyes, G., Sharmina, M., Mendoza, J. M. F., Schmid, A. J., & Azapagic, A. (2018).
Management, 1(1), 105–115. Developing and implementing circular economy business models in service –oriented
Beigne, E., Christmann, J., Valentian, A., Billoint, O., Amat, E., & Morche, D. (2015). technology companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 621–632.
November). UTBB FDSOI technology flexibility for ultra low power internet-of-things ap- Hossain, M. A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2014). What improves citizens’ privacy perceptions
plications. Paper Presented in European Solid-State Device Research Conference164–167. toward RFID technology? A cross-country investigation using mixed method ap-
Blunck, E., & Werthmann, H. (2017). Industry 4.0- an opportunity to realize sustainable proach. International Journal of Information Management, 34(6), 711–719.
manufacturing and its potential for a circular economy. Paper Presented in Proceedings Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J. C. (2016). An empirical examination of consumer adoption of Internet
of the DIEM: Dubrovnik International Economic Meeting in Dubrovnik, 12–14 (Accessed of Things services: Network externalities and concern for information privacy per-
on 23 August 2018). spectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 516–527.
Borgia, E. (2014). The internet of things vision: Key features, applications and open is- Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Raman, K. R. (2019). Smart cities: Advances
sues. Computer Communications, 54, 1–31. in research—An information systems perspective. International Journal of Information
Brettel, M., Fisher, F. G., Bendig, D., Weber, A. R., & Wolff, B. (2016). Enablers for self- Management, 47, 88–100.
optimizing production systems in the context of industrie 4.0. Paper Presented in 48th Jabbour, A. B. L.d. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Filho, M. G., & Roubaud, D. (2018). Industry 4.0
CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems- CIRP CMS 2015 in Ischia, 93–98. and the circular economy: a proposed research agenda and original roadmap for
Cardin, O. (2019). Classification of cyber-physical production systems application: sustainable operations. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Proposition of an analysis framework. Computers in Industry, 104, 11–21. s10479-018-2772-8.
Chang, K. C., & Wang, C. P. (2010). Information systems resources and information se- Jesus, A. D., Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Mendonca, S. (2018). Eco-innovation in the
curity. Information Systems Frontiers, 13(4), 579–593. transition to a circular economy: An analytical literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Charro, A., & Scahefer, D. (2018). Cloud manufacturing as a new type of Product-Service Production, 172, 2999–3018.
System. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 31(10), Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., & Rosado, l. (2018). Circular economy- from review of
1018–1033. theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources,
Datta, S. K., Bonnet, C., & Haerri, J. (2015). Fog computing architecture to enable con- Conservation, and Recycling, 135, 190–201.
sumer centric internet of things services. Paper Presented in International Symposium on Kamboj, S., Sarmah, B., Gupta, S., & Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Examining branding co-creation
Consumer Electronics, 1–2. in brand communities on social media: Applying the paradigm of Stimulus-Organism-
Dilberoglu, U. M., Gharehpapagh, B., Yaman, U., & Dolen, M. (2017). The role of additive Response. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 169–185.
manufacturing in the era of industry 4.0. Paper Presented in 27th International Kshetri, N. (2018). Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objec-
Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 11, 545–554. tives. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 80–89.
Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision Lamba, K., & Singh, S. P. (2017). Big data in operations and supply chain management:
112
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
Current trends and future perspectives. Production Planning and Control, 28(11-12), service. International Journal of Information Management, 37(4), 257–268.
877–890. Shaukat, S. S., Rao, T. A., & Khan, M. A. (2016). Impact of sample size on principal
Lamba, K., & Singh, S. P. (2018). Modelling big data enablers for operations and supply component analysis ordination of an environmental data set: Effects on eigen-
chain management. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(2), 629–658. structure. Ekológia (Bratislava), 35(2), 173–190.
Leitao, P., Colombo, A. W., & Karnouskos, S. (2016). Industrial automation based on Sherer, S. A. (2005). From supply chain management to value network advocacy:
cyber-physical systems technologies: Prototype implementations and challenges. Implications for e-supply chains. Supply Chain Management an International Journal,
Computers in Industry, 81, 11–25. 10(2), 77–83.
Liu, Q., Liu, Z., Xu, W., Tang, Q., Zhou, Z., & Pham, D. T. (2018). Human-robot colla- Shiau, W. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Yang, H. S. (2017). Co-citation and cluster analyses of
boration in disassembly for sustainable manufacturing. International Journal of extant literature on social networks. International Journal of Information Management,
Production Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1578906. 37(5), 390–399.
Lu, Y., & Xu, X. (2019). Cloud-based manufacturing equipment and big data analytics to Somers, L., Dewit, I., & Baelus, C. (2018). Understanding product-service systems in a
enable on-demand manufacturing services. Robotics and Computer-integrated sharing economy context- a literature review. Paper Presented in 10th CIRP Conference
Manufacturing, 57, 92–102. on Industrial Product- Service Systems, IPS2 in Linkoping, Vol. 41, 173–178.
Lu, Y., Peng, T., & Xu, X. (2019). Energy-efficient cyber-physical production network: Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in
Architecture and technologies. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 129, 56–66. China: Moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42,
Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Shankar, R., Garg, C. P., & Jakhar, S. (2018). Modelling critical 215–227.
success factors for sustainability initiatives in supply chains in Indian context using Tan, L., & Wang, N. (2010). Future internet: The internet of things. Paper Presented in 3rd
Grey-DEMATEL. Production Planning and Control, 29(9), 705–728. https://doi.org/10. International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE) in
1080/09537287.2018.1448126. Chengdu V5-376-V5-380.
Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N. P., Dora, M., et al. (2018). Tan, Y., Vuran, M., & Goddard, S. (2009). Spatio-temporal event model for cyber-physical
Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country systems. Proceedings of IEEE ICDCS Workshops, 44–50.
context. Production Planning and Control, 29(6), 551–569. Tao, F., Zuo, Y., Xu, L. D., & Zhang, L. (2014). IoT-based intelligent perception and access
Miorandi, D., Sicari, S., Pellegrini, F., & Chlamtac, I. (2012). Internet of things: Vision, of manufacturing resource toward cloud manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on
applications and research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks, 10(7), 1497–1516. Industrial Informatics, 10(2), 1547–1557.
Monostori, L. (2014). Cyber-physical production systems: Roots, expectations and R&D Thames, L., & Schaefer, D. (2016). Software-defined cloud manufacturing for industry
challenges. Paper Presented in Proceedings of the 47th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing 4.0. Paper Presented in The 6th International Conference on Changeable, Agile,
Systems 2014 in Ontario, Vol. 17, 9–13. Reconfigurable and Virtual Production, Vol. 52, 12–17.
Mont, O. K. (2002). Clarifying the concept of product-service system. Journal of Cleaner Tseng, M. L., Tan, R. R., Chiu, A. S. F., Chien, C. F., & Kuo, T. C. (2018). Circular Economy
Production, 10, 237–245. meets Industry 4.0: Can big data drive industrial symbiosis? Resources. Conservation
Muina, F. E. G., Sanchez, R. G., Ferrari, A. M., & Blundo, D. S. (2018). The paradigms of & Recycling, 131, 146–147.
industry 4.0 and circular economy as enabling drivers for the competitiveness of Usman, M., & Zhang, X. (2014). A framework for realizing universal standardization for
businesses and territories: The case of an Italian ceramic tiles manufacturing com- internet of things. Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information, 2(2), 147–153.
pany. Social Sciences, 7(12), 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7120255. Wang, L., & Ji, W. (2018). Cloud enabled CPS and Big data environment in manu-
Posada, J., Toro, C., Barandiaran, I., Oyarzun, D., Stricker, D., de Amicis, R., Pinto, E. B., facturing. Paper Presented in 3rd International Conference on the Industry 4.0 Model for
Eistert, P., Dollner, J., & Vallarino, I. (2015). Visual computing as a key enabling Advanced Manufacturing in Belgrade, 265–292.
technology for Industrie 4.0 and Industrial Internet. IEEE Computer Graphics and Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R., Al-Sobhi, F., Shareef, M. A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2013).
Applications, 35(2), 26–40. Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating e-government adoption: An
Pozza, R., Nati, M., Georgoulas, S., Moessner, K., & Gluhak, A. (2015). Neighbor discovery empirical investigation. International Journal of Information Management, 33(5),
for opportunistic networking in internet of things scenarios: A survey. IEEE Access : 716–725.
Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 3, 1101–1131. Weyns, D., Ramachandran, G. S., & Singh, R. K. (2018). Self-managing internet of things.
Queiroz, M. M., & Wamba, S. F. (2019). Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: Paper Presented in 44th International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice
An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. International of Computer Science in Krems, Vol. 10706, 67–84.
Journal of Information Management, 46, 70–82. Williams, R., McMahon, E., Samtani, S., Patton, M., & Chen, H. (2017). Identifying vul-
Rajput, S., & Singh, S. P. (2018). An integrated approach of PCA, ISM, DEMATEL to model nerabilities of consumer internet of things (IoT) devices: A scalable approach. Paper
IoT enablers for industry 4.0. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04- Presented in IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics,
2018-0378. 179–181.
Rana, N. P., Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Islam, R., Roderick, S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018). Winans, K., Kendall, A., & Deng, H. (2017). The history and current applications of the
Barriers to the development of smart cities in Indian context. Information Systems circular economy concept. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 825–833.
Frontiers, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9873-4. Witkowski, K. (2017). Internet of things, Big data, industry 4.0- innovative solutions in
Roblek, V., Meško, M., & Krapež, A. (2016). A complex view of Industry 4.0. SAGE Open, logistics and supply Chain management. Paper Presented in 7th International Conference
6(2), 1–11. on Engineering, Project, and Production Management, Vol. 182, 763–769.
Sandner, P. (2018). Blockchain: Proposition of a new and sustainable macroeconomic system. Wortmann, F., & Flüchter, K. (2015). Internet of things: Technology and value added.
Accessed June 6 2018https://medium.com/@philippsandner/blockchain- Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(3), 221–224.
proposition-of-a-new-and-sustainable-macroeconomic-system-d9c628bd56b7. Xu, X. (2012). From cloud computing to cloud manufacturing. Robotics and Computer-
Schumacher, A., Selim, E., & Wilfried, S. (2016). A maturity model for assessing Industry Integrated Manufacturing, 28, 75–86.
4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises. Procedia CIRP, 52, 161–166. Zhong, R. Y., Newman, S. T., Huang, G. Q., & Lan, S. (2016). Big Data for supply chain
Schutze, A., Helwig, N., & Schneider, T. (2018). Sensors 4.0- smart sensors and mea- management in the service and manufacturing sectors: Challenges, opportunities, and
surement technology enable Industry 4.0. Journal of Sensors and Sensor Systems, 7, future perspectives. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, 572–591.
359–371. Zhou, K., Liu, T., & Zhou, L. (2015). Industry 4.0: Towards future industrial opportunities
Shareef, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2017). Content design of ad- and challenges. Paper Presented in 12th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and
vertisement for consumer exposure: Mobile marketing through short messaging Knowledge Discovery (FSKD) in Zhangjiajie, 2147–2152.
113