CAPTURING THE REALITY OF INDUSTRY 4.0 READINESS DIMENSIONS AND INDICATORS IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY: AN ANALYSIS OF APPLYING I4.0 IN INDONESIA

IF 0.5 4区工程技术 Q4 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL

South African Journal of Industrial Engineering Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.7166/34-2-2846

Hasbullah Hasbullah, Salleh Ahmad Bareduan

{"title":"CAPTURING THE REALITY OF INDUSTRY 4.0 READINESS DIMENSIONS AND INDICATORS IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY: AN ANALYSIS OF APPLYING I4.0 IN INDONESIA","authors":"Hasbullah Hasbullah, Salleh Ahmad Bareduan","doi":"10.7166/34-2-2846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Indonesia has the lowest Industry 4.0 (I4.0) readiness in South East Asia, and uses the INDI 4.0 instrument (Indonesia Industry 4.0 readiness index), which is not as comprehensive and accurate as it could be. An Initial survey confirmed that only 56.86% of respondents agreed that INDI 4.0 accurately measured readiness in manufacturing operations. Unlike the primary I4.0 indices, INDI 4.0 lacks comprehensive I4.0 dimensions and characteristics. This paper aims to identify the dimensions and indicators of I4.0 readiness to enhance INDI 4.0 through an exploratory mixed-method research approach with a multiphase research design. The first phase consisted of a qualitative approach through a documentary review, interviews, and observations to explore the dimensions and indicators of I4.0 readiness. This phase successfully identified four dimensions that experts, academics, and practitioners validated: technology, data life cycle, I4.0 design principles, and smart factory. These dimensions were broken down into 27 indicators of I4.0 readiness, then validated again through a statistical approach before being affirmed by a survey with a Pearson’s correlation > 0.361 and Cronbach’s alpha of 0.987, which indicated validity and reliability. The second phase, using a quantitative approach through a survey, confirmed the four dimensions and 27 indicators for measuring I4.0 readiness levels; these were ‘not ready’, ‘early stage’, ‘moderate readiness’, ‘readiness ripe’, and ‘already implemented’. This finding comprehensively measured I4.0 readiness based on feedback from industries struggling to adopt I4.0, especially in developing countries such as Indonesia. This finding also differed from existing indices (Acatech, RAMI 4.0, Dreamy, SIMMI 4.0. IMPULS) from developed countries and industries already stable in implementing I4.0. eywords: (Industry 4.0, I4.0 readiness indicators, INDI 4.0)","PeriodicalId":49493,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Industrial Engineering","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Industrial Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7166/34-2-2846","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Indonesia has the lowest Industry 4.0 (I4.0) readiness in South East Asia, and uses the INDI 4.0 instrument (Indonesia Industry 4.0 readiness index), which is not as comprehensive and accurate as it could be. An Initial survey confirmed that only 56.86% of respondents agreed that INDI 4.0 accurately measured readiness in manufacturing operations. Unlike the primary I4.0 indices, INDI 4.0 lacks comprehensive I4.0 dimensions and characteristics. This paper aims to identify the dimensions and indicators of I4.0 readiness to enhance INDI 4.0 through an exploratory mixed-method research approach with a multiphase research design. The first phase consisted of a qualitative approach through a documentary review, interviews, and observations to explore the dimensions and indicators of I4.0 readiness. This phase successfully identified four dimensions that experts, academics, and practitioners validated: technology, data life cycle, I4.0 design principles, and smart factory. These dimensions were broken down into 27 indicators of I4.0 readiness, then validated again through a statistical approach before being affirmed by a survey with a Pearson’s correlation > 0.361 and Cronbach’s alpha of 0.987, which indicated validity and reliability. The second phase, using a quantitative approach through a survey, confirmed the four dimensions and 27 indicators for measuring I4.0 readiness levels; these were ‘not ready’, ‘early stage’, ‘moderate readiness’, ‘readiness ripe’, and ‘already implemented’. This finding comprehensively measured I4.0 readiness based on feedback from industries struggling to adopt I4.0, especially in developing countries such as Indonesia. This finding also differed from existing indices (Acatech, RAMI 4.0, Dreamy, SIMMI 4.0. IMPULS) from developed countries and industries already stable in implementing I4.0. eywords: (Industry 4.0, I4.0 readiness indicators, INDI 4.0)

查看原文本刊更多论文

捕捉发展中国家工业4.0准备程度和指标的现实:对印尼工业4.0应用的分析

印度尼西亚是东南亚工业4.0 (I4.0)准备程度最低的国家，并且使用的是INDI 4.0工具(印度尼西亚工业4.0准备指数)，该工具没有达到应有的全面和准确。一项初步调查证实，只有56.86%的受访者同意INDI 4.0准确地衡量了制造操作的准备程度。与工业4.0的主要指标不同，工业4.0缺乏全面的工业4.0维度和特征。本文旨在通过多阶段研究设计的探索性混合方法研究方法，确定工业4.0准备程度的维度和指标，以提高工业4.0水平。第一阶段包括定性方法，通过文献回顾、访谈和观察来探索工业4.0准备程度的维度和指标。这一阶段成功地确定了专家、学者和从业者验证的四个维度:技术、数据生命周期、工业4.0设计原则和智能工厂。这些维度被分解为工业4.0准备程度的27个指标，然后通过统计方法再次验证，然后通过Pearson相关性调查确认。0.361, Cronbach’s alpha为0.987，具有效度和信度。第二阶段，通过一项调查，采用定量方法，确定了衡量工业4.0准备水平的四个维度和27个指标;它们分别是“未准备好”、“早期阶段”、“准备适度”、“准备成熟”和“已经实施”。这一发现基于来自努力采用工业4.0的行业的反馈，全面衡量了工业4.0的准备情况，特别是在印度尼西亚等发展中国家。这一发现也不同于现有的指数(Acatech, RAMI 4.0, Dreamy, SIMMI 4.0)。来自发达国家和已经稳定实施工业4.0的行业。关键词:(工业4.0，工业4.0准备度指标，工业4.0)

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 工程技术-工程：工业

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

20.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6 weeks

期刊介绍： The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering (SAJIE) publishes articles with the emphasis on research, development and application within the fields of Industrial Engineering and Engineering and Technology Management. In this way, it aims to contribute to the further development of these fields of study and to serve as a vehicle for the effective interchange of knowledge, ideas and experience between the research and training oriented institutions and the application oriented industry. Articles on practical applications, original research and meaningful new developments as well as state of the art surveys are encouraged.