International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Industry 4.0: a supply chain innovation perspective

Gerd J. Hahn

To cite this article: Gerd J. Hahn (2020) Industry 4.0: a supply chain innovation
perspective, International Journal of Production Research, 58:5, 1425-1441, DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2019.1641642

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1641642

Published online: 23 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 809

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
International Journal of Production Research, 2020
Vol. 58, No. 5, 1425–1441, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1641642

Industry 4.0: a supply chain innovation perspective

∗
Gerd J. Hahn

German Graduate School of Management and Law, Heilbronn, Germany

(Received 18 August 2018; accepted 3 July 2019)

The Fourth Industrial Revolution – also known as Industry 4.0 (i4.0) – comprises the digitalisation of the industrial sec-
tor. This paper uses the theoretical lens of supply chain innovation (SCI) to investigate the implications of i4.0 on supply
chain management. For these purposes, the method of structured content analysis is applied to more than 200 use cases
of i4.0-enabled SCI introduced by both established and startup companies. i4.0-enabled SCI manifests along three dimen-
sions: process, technology, and business architecture. The key findings of this study can be summarised as follows: first,
i4.0-enabled SCI extends the initial focus on productivity improvements in SC processes towards scalability and flexibil-
ity. Second, extant i4.0 solutions rely mostly on analytics and smart things while omitting smart people technology and
the human-centric approach associated with the i4.0 paradigm. Third, established companies adopt i4.0 merely to sustain
their existing business architectures while startup companies radically change their operating models, relying heavily on
data analytics and the platform economy. Consequently, established companies pursue a problem-driven, engineering-based
approach to SCI while startup companies follow an ‘asset-light’, business-driven approach. Lastly, there are two distinct
approaches to digitalising operational SC processes: platform-based crowdsourcing of standard processes and on-demand
provision of customised services.
Keywords: industry 4.0; supply chain management; supply chain innovation; industrial internet of things

1. Introduction
The contemporary digital revolution will have profound effects on both business and society at large. According to a World
Economic Forum study (WEF 2017), the cumulative value at stake amounts to more than 100 trillion USD for the decade
running from 2016 through 2025. Recent announcements confirm the dominance and disruptive potential of digital technol-
ogy companies. As of 1 August, 2016, the five largest US firms by market capitalisation are all digital technology companies
(Leswign 2016). Moreover, there are nearly 200 digital ‘unicorns’, i.e. private startup companies with market capitalisation
of at least 1 billion USD as of the end of May 2017 (Friedman 2017). These digital startups have disrupted traditional
industries dramatically: examples include Netflix (video distribution/rental), Uber (passenger transportation), and Airbnb
(lodging).
Along the same lines, established companies use digital technology to transform their supply chain (SC) operating mod-
els (Schmidt et al. 2015), implementing SC strategy and specifying major enabling factors through which they provide value
to customers (Stevens and Johnson 2016). These efforts strongly benefit from conceptual and technological advancements
as part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Kagermann, Wahlster, and Helbig 2013). This phenomenon, also known as
‘Industry 4.0’ (i4.0) or the (Industrial) ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT), has received much attention in practitioners’ communities
(see McKinsey Digital 2015; Schrauf and Berttram 2016). i4.0 embodies a vision of intelligent and connected physical
assets, i.e. smart products and machines, that operate autonomously and can form self-coordinating systems such as smart
factories and SCs (Porter and Heppelmann 2014, 2015). Furthermore, these technologies enable novel SC operating models
that complement or even replace traditional approaches (van Alstyne, Parker, and Choudary 2016).
Motivated by these anecdotal findings, this paper uses the theoretical lens of supply chain innovation (SCI) (Arlbjørn,
de Haas, and Munksgaard 2011) to investigate the implications of i4.0 for supply chain management (SCM). The impor-
tance of information and communication technology (ICT) for SCM (see Gunasekaran and Ngai 2004) and its positive
performance impact (see Li et al. 2009; Prajogo and Olhager 2012) have been widely confirmed. Recent advances in digital
technology promise radical changes in several industry sectors and SC processes, including manufacturing and logistics
(Kagermann 2015). Corresponding innovations affect SC operating models (Brettel et al. 2014) and mandate the adoption
of a novel (digital) approach to SCM (Büyüközkan and Göçer 2018).

*Email: [email protected]
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1426 G.J. Hahn

Distinguishing innovation outcomes (the ‘what’) from the innovation process (the ‘how’) as well as the corresponding
determinants of innovation (the ‘why’) (Busse and Wallenburg 2011), this paper examines the outcome dimension concern-
ing innovation ‘content’ and its constitutive elements (see Arlbjørn, de Haas, and Munksgaard 2011). This research adopts
a firm-level perspective and distinguishes established from startup companies to reflect the distinct innovation approaches
that characterise companies in these categories, which is especially to be expected with technology-driven innovation (see
Freeman and Engel 2007). Consequently, this paper aims at answering two research questions: (1) What are the current
state of and future prospects for i4.0-enabled SCI? (2) What are the constitutive dimensions of i4.0-enabled SCI and how do
they relate to each other? Both research questions are examined with a special focus on relevant similarities and differences
between established and startup companies.
Following a theory elaboration approach (see Fisher and Aguinis 2017), this paper refines the conceptual SCI model
specified in Arlbjørn, de Haas, and Munksgaard (2011) to explain the phenomenon of i4.0-enabled SCI. For these purposes,
the method of structured content analysis (SCA) (see Jauch, Osborn, and Martin 1980) is applied to two large-scale sec-
ondary datasets that include more than 200 i4.0-enabled SC use cases involving established and startup companies. This
paper thereby contributes to the emerging field of management research on i4.0 (see Schneider 2018). This paper provides
an empirically validated perspective on the issue of digital SC transformation. Current approaches either lack an SC focus
(see, e.g. Arnold, Kiel, and Voigt 2016) or are primarily conceptual (see, e.g. Hofmann and Rüsch 2017). Finally, this paper
is one of the first studies on startup companies and the digitalisation of the industrial sector.
The paper is organised as follows: conceptual foundations and the research background are provided in Section 2.
Section 3 introduces the conceptual SCI model that serves as the framework for the study. The analysis of two secondary
datasets on i4.0-enabled SC use cases is presented in Section 4. General insights are discussed in Section 5, while Section 6
concludes the paper and projects directions for future research.

2. Conceptual foundations and research background

2.1. Industry 4.0
Digitalisation can be defined as a radical change in products and services, processes, or entire business models through the
application of digital technology (Nambisan et al. 2017). In particular, i4.0 entails the digitalisation of the industrial sector
(McKinsey Digital 2015) through the convergence of the physical and virtual worlds and the universal interconnection
of people and things (Kagermann 2015). Big data and advanced analytics play a major role in i4.0 and are seen as key
‘game changers’, in particular for SCM (Waller and Fawcett 2013). Additional technologies such as 3D printing, robots,
and autonomous vehicles are expected to complement i4.0-enabled SC systems (Yin, Stecke, and Li 2018).
Several literature reviews that reflect the rapidly increasing interest in i4.0 summarise its technical foundations as well
as general business implications (see Hermann, Pentek, and Otto 2015; Liao et al. 2016; Moeuf et al. 2018; Xu, Xu, and
Li 2018). i4.0 involves several managerial challenges for companies which relate in particular to business model design
and the question how companies create, deliver, and capture value in this context (Arnold, Kiel, and Voigt 2016). This
paper focuses on the implications for SCM at the strategic level pertaining to the operating model. At the operational
level, use cases of i4.0 in manufacturing and logistics are studied in Thoben, Wiesner, and Wuest (2017) and Hofmann and
Rüsch (2017), while Buer, Strandhagen, and Chan (2018) and Tortorella and Fettermann (2018) explore the link between
i4.0 and lean manufacturing systems.
The implications of i4.0 for SC operating models have received only limited attention in the literature. Kiel, Arnold, and
Voigt (2017) find that i4.0 technology changes the value proposition in a business model primarily by enabling solutions
that optimise customer operations processes. As a consequence, internal infrastructure, which constitutes one element of an
SC operating model, and customer relationship management must be adjusted accordingly. Ehret and Wirtz (2017) propose
service-based operating models that involve the provision of manufacturing assets and associated full-service operations,
information and analytics services as well as efficient mass customisation via end-user integration.
Laudien and Daxböck (2016) examine eleven manufacturing firm cases to synthesise three archetypes of i4.0-enabled
business model changes. The implications for SC operating models can be summarised as follows: first, i4.0 technology
represents a strategic lever that can be used to enhance the efficiency of internal SC operations. Second, firms can leverage
their networks of partners, which are linked by i4.0 technology, to provide bundled customer-specific offerings. Lastly,
i4.0 technology makes the provision of digital offerings using value-added services based on software and the use of data
possible (see Schneider 2018).
In summary, extant papers focus mostly on established manufacturing companies but without offering an SC perspective
that covers procurement, logistics, or industrial service provision. Moreover, insight into the implications of digitalisation
on SC operating models is lacking. Lastly, in this context a perspective on startup companies is missing which could yield
 International Journal of Production Research 1427

insights into similarities and differences with respect to the digitalisation of the industrial sector. This paper aims at closing
these gaps by providing a perspective on the implications of i4.0 for SC operations in the industrial context.

2.2. Supply chain innovation

Broadly defined, SCM covers two major tasks (CSCMP 2013): (i) the planning, implementing, and controlling of primary
activities (esp. procurement, manufacturing, and logistics) that create and deliver value to the end customer; and (ii) the
integration of business partners into value networks and the coordination of corresponding business processes within and
across companies. As a result of the strong focus of SCM on processes, SCI has been viewed primarily as equivalent
to process innovation (Flint and Larsson 2007). Recent reviews of SCI can be found in Arlbjørn and Paulraj (2013) and
Carrillo, Druehl, and Hsuan (2015).
In addition to its interest in classical aspects of innovation management such as innovation strategy, organisation, and
processes, SCI research is also concerned with innovation networks and innovation content (see Flint and Larsson 2007).
Innovation networks aim at generating innovations by integrating suppliers and customers or by forming horizontal alliances
(see Roy, Sivakumar, and Wilkinson 2004; Wagner 2012). In contrast, innovation content refers to the result of the innova-
tion process. Arlbjørn, de Haas, and Munksgaard (2011) identify three interacting content dimensions of SCI: SC process,
SC technology, and SC network structure. The efficacy of the proposed conceptual model has been validated using 36 use
cases from a secondary dataset.
Building on previous work of Arlbjørn, de Haas, and Munksgaard (2011) and Munksgaard, Stentoft, and Paulraj (2014)
derive the value implications of SCI using four in-depth case studies. They find that SCI is mostly cost-driven but can
potentially drive customer value and is closely linked to the SC operating model. Moreover, product clockspeed, i.e. the
rate of change in an industry, influences the direction of SCI efforts: high-clockspeed industries pay more attention to
optimising internal processes, while external partners and relationships characterise low-clockspeed industries. Abdelkafi
and Pero (2018) find that SCI generates at most incremental business model changes as a result of its operational focus, but
large companies can use SCI to develop novel business models that complement existing approaches.
In summary, extant SCI research does not cover the implications of the ongoing digital transformation for SC operating
models. This relates to both the current state of and future prospects for this field. Moreover, we have only limited insight
into the interplay of the SCI dimensions in this context. Lastly, an SCI perspective on startup companies is currently missing
from the literature. This paper thus analyses two large-scale secondary datasets on i4.0-enabled SC use cases involving both
established and startup companies to close the aforementioned gaps in the literature.

3. A conceptual model of digital SCI

3.1. Overview
This research adapts the conceptual SCI model of Arlbjørn, de Haas, and Munksgaard (2011) covering three interacting con-
tent elements: (i) business process, (ii) digital technology, and (iii) business architecture. Business processes are the pivotal
element in SCM and thus serve as the first dimension of the conceptual model. Arlbjørn, de Haas, and Munksgaard (2011)
consider any technology that can be used to generate SCI. Given this study’s focus on i4.0-enabled use cases, digital technol-
ogy represents the key differentiating factor and thus determines the scope of this research. The business architecture covers
a conceptual description of a company’s major organisational structures and business rules that are required to achieve its
business goals (Versteeg and Bouwman 2006). Consequently, this paper considers the business perspective of an SC oper-
ating model, extending the focus of SCI beyond the mere (physical) topology of an SC network. This coincides with a more
business-oriented perspective on technology-driven innovation as part of the digital transformation (see Kiel, Arnold, and
Voigt 2017). The conceptual model is summarised in Figure 1.

3.2. Business processes

For the purposes of this paper, three categories of business processes are distinguished according to the major focus of each
one: (i) orchestrate, (ii) operate, and (iii) support. Orchestrating an SC represents the overarching process that includes
integrating business partners and coordinating material, financial, and information flows (Stadtler 2005), linking operational
and supporting processes. Following the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model (APICS 2018), this paper
considers five operational processes that characterise major SC activities: plan, source, make, deliver, and return. This
set of key processes is complemented by four supporting processes that cover the management of SC infrastructure, SC
human resources, SC procurement and contracts, and SC risk and compliance. This classification includes major supporting
1428 G.J. Hahn

Figure 1. A conceptual model of digital SCI.

activities as identified in Porter and Millar (1985) and considers the issue of SC risk (Tang 2006), which is also reflected in
the SCOR model (see APICS 2018).

3.3. Digital technologies

i4.0 involves a multitude of interlinked technology concepts (see Hofmann and Rüsch 2017) and various emerging tech-
nologies are frequently mentioned in this context (see Rüßmann et al. 2015). Acknowledging that there is no comprehensive
framework of i4.0-enabled technologies, this paper distinguishes core from complementary technology stacks.

3.3.1. Core technologies

This paper uses the concept of socio-technical systems (see Trist and Bamforth 1951) and anchors digital technologies to
its three constitutive elements: people, technical systems, and organisations. Digital technologies enable people, technical
systems (‘things’, e.g. machines and products), and organisations to be ‘smart’ (Porter and Heppelmann 2014), i.e. to make
autonomous and well-informed decisions in networked contexts. Consequently, this paper distinguishes three corresponding
bundles of digital technologies that enable elements of socio-technical systems.
The first bundle of digital technologies includes social media, mobile computing, analytics, and cloud computing, which
are summarised by the acronym ‘SMAC’ (Frank 2012; Shelton 2013). Additional technologies, such as augmented reality
and wearables, are frequently mentioned in this context (Rüßmann et al. 2015). For the purposes of this paper, the term smart
people is used to represent all human-centred digital technologies that combine intelligence and networked collaboration to
improve individuals’ productivity within business processes.
Following a similar logic, technical systems are enhanced to become intelligent and interconnected using digital tech-
nologies, i.e. smart things. So-called cyber-physical systems are engineered systems that communicate with each other
to form the IoT; they use big data and analytics to make well-informed, local, autonomous decisions (Lee, Bagheri, and
Kao 2015). Lastly, smart organisations rely on similar digital technologies to foster horizontal and vertical integration (Xu,
Xu, and Li 2018) by connecting autonomous entities to extended value networks (Hofmann and Rüsch 2017).

3.3.2. Complementary technologies

Two groups of complementary technologies expand the digital core of smart technologies for SCM. Hardware-driven
technologies include mainly additive manufacturing (‘3D printing’), autonomous vehicles, advanced robotics, and drones
(Fawcett and Waller 2014). While autonomous vehicles, robots and drones enhance productivity through process automa-
tion, additive manufacturing, which involves creating a three-dimensional object by joining and solidifying a variety of
materials, drives agility and responsiveness along SCs (Waller and Fawcett 2014). More precisely, additive manufacturing
supports rapid prototyping in product development and enables customised production, making postponement and local or
near-shore manufacturing possible (Fawcett and Waller 2014).
 International Journal of Production Research 1429

Software-driven technologies. Known primarily for the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, blockchain technology (BCT) provides
an open and trusted ledger for recording business activities and value transactions between business partners (Iansiti and
Lakhani 2017). In i4.0 scenarios, BCT could enable tracking and tracing of material flows along an SC and could even
automate cross-company operations based on business rules that are implemented in smart contracts (Blossey, Eisenhardt,
and Hahn 2019). Consequently, BCT presumably represents the missing building block that has prevented the realisation of
self-governing value networks.

3.4. Business architecture

Three types of business architectures are distinguished for the purposes of this study (see Lakhani, Iansiti, and
Herman 2014): (i) product-centric, (ii) service-centric, and (iii) platform-centric (van Alstyne, Parker, and Choudary 2016).
The traditional transaction-based business architecture that involves selling a product to customers corresponds to a
product-centric approach (Kowalkowski et al. 2017). Although products are typically complemented by product-related
(aftersales) services such as maintenance and/or recycling, transfer of product ownership represents the distinctive element
of this business architecture (Reim and Parida 2015). In contrast, a service-centric approach is designed for ongoing value
exchange wherein a provider guarantees the availability of an asset/service or commits to delivering a predefined outcome
to the customer over a certain time period (Kowalkowski et al. 2017). Consequently, the provider becomes liable for the
value in use to the customer, which results in reallocating risk, thereby benefitting both parties (see Kim, Cohen, and
Netessine 2007). Despite these differences between product- and service-centric approaches, the value chain still follows
the classical ‘pipeline logic’ of linear business activities with a focus on resource control and internal optimisation (van
Alstyne, Parker, and Choudary 2016).
The third business architecture, which entails a platform-centric approach, is built around platforms that enable collab-
orative value creation and thus lead to a shift in focus from customer value towards total ecosystem value (Bharadwaj
et al. 2013). In contrast to pipeline businesses, platforms exploit network effects by enabling external interaction and
orchestrating platform members’ resources (Li, Liu, and Bandyopadhyay 2010). Consequently, platforms represent a more
complex and dynamic environment than pipelines because platform players other than a platform owner fill distinct roles,
such as producer or consumer, which themselves can change rapidly (van Alstyne, Parker, and Choudary 2016). Two fun-
damental types of platforms can be distinguished from a platform owner’s perspective (Thomas, Autio, and Gann 2014):
first, multi-sided market platforms such as Uber and Airbnb serve as market intermediaries that match service producers
(taxis, housing providers) with consumers (passengers, guests) (Täuscher and Laudien 2018). Second, platform ecosystems
organise for value co-creation and delivery to customers using a shared technology or resource that is controlled by a plat-
form owner (Gawer and Cusumano 2014). A prominent example is Apple and its smartphone operating system iOS, which
third-party developers can use to create and distribute their apps to iPhone users via Apple’s app store (van Alstyne, Parker,
and Choudary 2016).

4. Empirical analysis
4.1. Approach and methodology
This paper uses SCA to extract relevant information from use case descriptions which is coded according to a schedule,
much as respondents would complete a questionnaire (Jauch, Osborn, and Martin 1980). Jauch, Osborn, and Martin (1980)
defend the suitability of SCA of cases in management research, especially for research that is located at the firm level. The
SCA in this paper is conducted following the four steps described in Seuring and Gold (2012): (i) material collection, (ii)
descriptive analysis, (iii) category selection, and (iv) material evaluation.

4.1.1. Material collection

This study uses two distinct large-scale datasets collected from separate sources that contain descriptions of i4.0-enabled SC
use cases. Although two distinct data sources are used in this research, both datasets are analysed strictly following the same
approach, as described below. The paper considers two datasets to reduce context-related bias and to make cross-comparison
possible.
The first dataset originates from the state-funded Industry 4.0 initiative (Allianz Industrie 4.0) of the Ministry of Eco-
nomic Affairs of Baden-Wuerttemberg (Germany). As part of this initiative, a competition has been launched focussing
mainly on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and institutions located in Baden-Wuerttemberg that have devel-
oped novel i4.0-based solutions. One hundred seven distinct profiles of awarded solutions (as of 30 June, 2018), including
a complete self-reported description, constitute the dataset (see Allianz Industrie 4.0 Baden-Wuerttemberg 2018). These
1430 G.J. Hahn

use-case descriptions provide information about business process, the digital technologies involved, and the implemented
business architecture.
While the first dataset is focussed mostly on established companies, another dataset was drawn from the startup platform
angel.co (see Angel.co 2018) to bring in a second perspective. Of the 499 categories covered on the platform, 23 SCM-
related categories were selected that relate to planning and controlling of SCs as well as procurement, manufacturing, and
forward/reverse logistics activities. Another four categories were included to cover IoT and industrial automation as key
i4.0 technologies. Seven hundred three distinct and complete company profiles (as of 30 June, 2018) are considered that
have obtained the highest performance rating on the platform, i.e. a ‘signal strength’ of five out of five. Data on the business
processes and digital technologies involved as well as the implemented business architecture are derived from the profile
and, where necessary, the linked company homepage.

4.1.2. Descriptive analysis

Both datasets are summarised by providing descriptive statistics. Company size and industry sector are reported for
the established companies while duration on the platform and headquarter location are used to characterise the startup
companies. These analyses underline the richness of the data and the broad scope of this study.

4.1.3. Category selection

The conceptual model presented in Section 3 provides the categories with corresponding definitions for the coding of both
datasets (see Table A1 in the Appendix for a summary). Using theory-driven categories that are rigorously derived from the
literature ensures that the results exhibit high levels of generality and external validity.

4.1.4. Material evaluation

Material evaluation is conducted in the same way for both datasets: each use case is assigned to exactly one business
architecture and one business process based on the relevant use-case information. Furthermore, a single or multiple digital
technologies are selected for each use case, if applicable. Coding is performed by the author and independently by a second
researcher with disagreements being resolved via discursive alignment of the interpretations in a second step. The categories
presented in Section 4.1.3 are strictly applied in the coding process to ensure the reliability of the results.

4.2. Established companies

4.2.1. Descriptive analysis
The scope of the analysis is restricted to field-tested digital applications in industrial SCs. Consequently, 14 experimental and
training solutions proposed by universities and research institutions were excluded. Another ten use cases were removed that
relate to non-industrial settings (e.g. healthcare) or that involve solutions where digital technology plays only a minor role.
The remaining set of 83 use cases mostly represents SMEs with fewer than 250 employees (48%) or companies employing
between 250 and 2,000 employees (32%). Companies with more than 2,000 employees account for the remaining 20%. The
majority of the firms are well-established companies, of which only 13% were founded within the 10 years preceding the
launch of the research that informs this paper.
While 28% of the solutions are reported by ICT companies, machinery and plant engineering (24%), electrical and
electronics engineering (10%), and automation technology (7%) represent the top three non-ICT industries in the dataset.
The remaining 31% of the companies are distributed across various industries, e.g. automotive, food products, logistics
services and systems, and medical equipment. These results show that both ICT and non-ICT companies pursue i4.0-enabled
solutions. Concerning non-ICT firms, technology- and engineering-driven companies with complementary manufacturing
capabilities in particular lead the way in this broad field.

4.2.2. Business processes

i4.0-based solutions combine up to three smart technologies relating to people, things, and organisations, resulting in seven
distinct technology bundles. In Table 1, the 83 use cases are summarised with reference to these distinct technology bundles
and the dominant business processes. Considering major business processes, the analysis suggests that use cases related to
manufacturing (41%) and managing SC infrastructure (37%) dominate the dataset, while 14% of the use cases focus on
orchestrating and integrating multiple business processes.
 International Journal of Production Research 1431

Table 1. Established companies: Business processes vs. smart technology bundles.

Smart technology bundle
Business process –/–/O –/T/– P/–/– –/T/O P/–/O P/T/– P/T/O Total
Orchestrate 6 1 1 3 1 12
Plan 1 1
Source 1 1 1 3
Make 3 17 2 6 5 1 34
Deliver 0
Return 0
Manage SC infrastructure 9 10 3 4 1 2 2 31
Manage SC human resources 2 2
Manage SC procurement & contracts 0
Manage SC risk & compliance 0
19 29 8 14 8 3 2 83
P = smart people technology, T = smart thing technology, O = smart organisation technology

The three aforementioned use-case clusters are further elaborated as follows: first, manufacturing-related use cases
include applications for real-time order-scheduling and shop floor management that enhance and complement existing man-
ufacturing execution systems by providing analytics and collaborative decision-making capabilities. Furthermore, they cover
smart factory applications that automate manufacturing and material supply systems to improve process quality, visibility,
and traceability (see Kusiak 2018).
Second, the process cluster manage SC infrastructure covers use cases that support process and asset performance man-
agement based on massive amounts of sensor data. Corresponding applications span a wide range, running from simple
descriptive analytics tools that enable real-time monitoring to more sophisticated predictive analytics approaches involv-
ing data mining and forecasting. Consequently, these solutions aim at avoiding or quickly resolving process defects and
equipment failure (see Tao et al. 2018) or at fine-tuning operating parameters to improve process performance.
The third cluster of use cases includes applications that integrate primary activities such as manufacturing and logistics or
connect planning and supporting processes to primary activities. Consequently, these applications aim at orchestrating trade-
offs that emerge at the interfaces of the aforementioned processes. Examples include interdependencies between preventive
maintenance activities and capacity planning as well as order-scheduling or the alignment of operational manufacturing and
outbound logistics activities. Another aspect relates to integrating product- and process-related information which enables
process-integrated quality management or aftersales service.
Based on these findings, one can conclude that recent developments focus largely on use cases involving smart manu-
facturing as well as performance and asset management (esp. predictive maintenance). As such, these applications simply
implement concepts which have been discussed in the literature (see, e.g. Kagermann, Wahlster, and Helbig 2013) or address
well-known deficiencies in extant solutions with respect to collaborative decision-making and vertical process integration
(see Hahn and Packowski 2015). Novel approaches and use cases in this context remain to be developed.
Specific issues of delivery and return processes or cross-company logistics management are not covered by the use
cases in the dataset. Corresponding scenarios could involve adaptations of just-in-time/just-in-sequence (JIT/JIS) delivery
and cross-company kanban for real-time material supply (see Hofmann and Rüsch 2017). Both concepts follow a demand-
driven, local-control approach which corresponds well with the i4.0 paradigm. In summary, future prospects include the
integration of existing standalone solutions and a more comprehensive approach towards smart SCs that include logistics
activities and thus extend the scope beyond the individual factory.

4.2.3. Digital technologies

Analysing the use cases with respect to the underlying digital technology, one observes that solutions enabled by smart
thing (35%) and smart organisation (23%) technologies as well as solutions that integrate these two technologies (17%) are
dominant. While most of the smart things are machines and technical equipment such as conveyor systems or automated
guided vehicles, only a few use cases involve smart products that capture their virtual twin and control operations processes
locally. These findings essentially reflect the two pragmatic innovation pathways that are typical of established industrial
companies: (i) digital refinement of existing products and technical systems, and/or (ii) development of software that does
not require extensive technical integration efforts.
1432 G.J. Hahn

Use cases with smart glasses and other wearables that support mobile operator scenarios (Rüßmann et al. 2015) are found
in the sample, but applications enabled by smart people technologies play only a minor role. The low prevalence of people-
centric solutions is rather surprising given the critical role of the human factor in the digital transformation (Kagermann,
Wahlster, and Helbig 2013).
Further consideration of the use cases reveals only five applications that integrate hardware-driven complementary
technologies such as additive manufacturing and advanced robotics technology into smart digital solutions. BCT is used
in only one application for the immutable documentation of maintenance reports. Thus, one can conclude that the digital
transformation is largely focussed on exploiting the benefits of the digital core technologies and has only now begun to
realise the potential involved in complementary technologies as described above.

4.2.4. Business architecture

The predominant majority of the solutions (90%) follow a product-centric approach. The remaining solutions cover service-
based business architectures, except for one use case in which a platform-ecosystem approach is applied. Two-thirds of
the service-based use cases involve ICT companies that provide mainly ‘as-a-service’ offerings. The single application that
uses a platform ecosystem model provides a smart factory solution that includes an app store concept. Independent vendors
can develop and distribute their own applications by building on the software framework of the solution. Notably, this
solution was developed in a self-contained subsidiary of the established company to accommodate the inherent tensions in
organisations generated by radical innovation activities (see Prange and Schlegelmilch 2010).
One can conclude from these findings that established companies adopt i4.0 technology primarily to increase operational
efficiency and have only now begun to integrate digital technologies to enhance existing offerings via value-added services
and the use of data. Approaches to developing complementary offerings and to leveraging partner networks (see Laudien
and Daxböck 2016) are not reported from the use cases and provide avenues for further use-case development. The results
show that ICT companies enter industrial markets by extending their offerings to the physical world of SC operations and
translating their service-based approach to industrial contexts. This represents development in a direction that runs opposite
to that found in cases of industrial companies that ‘servitise’ their business (see Ehret and Wirtz 2017).
In summary, while one finds that an increasing number of i4.0-based applications have been introduced in the SC
context, major changes in the business architecture of established companies could not be observed. Referring to the above-
mentioned example, some companies even aim at avoiding such fundamental changes by finding alternative organisational
arrangements or joint ventures below the firm level that foster radical innovation success but do not disrupt ongoing business
operations.

4.3. Startup companies

4.3.1. Descriptive analysis
As in the previous subsection, the analysis here is focussed on field-tested digital applications in industrial SCs. Among all
the use cases, 580 were removed that relate to passenger transportation, non-industrial settings (e.g. courier, express, and
parcel services or simple meal delivery services) or that involve solutions where digital technology plays only a minor role.
The remaining 123 companies in focus had joined the platform since August 2010 and had been listed for an average of 3.7
years, with a standard deviation of 1.4 years. Some 73% of the analysed startup companies in the sample are headquartered
in the US, while only 13% are located in Europe. The rest of the Americas (11%) and Asia (3%) account for the remaining
share of the companies.

4.3.2. Business processes

The results of aligning the classification of business processes with smart technology bundles are summarised in Table 2.
Upon further examination of the business processes, one finds that use cases covering delivery activities dominate the
dataset, accounting for 40% of the applications. IoT technologies for sensor-based tracking as well as analytics capabilities
for route optimisation play pivotal roles in these solutions. Only a few applications for warehousing and inventory manage-
ment provide process automation or on-demand approaches. One solution for on-demand warehousing uses a crowdsourcing
approach to monetise excess warehouse capacity in the market.
Use cases in the second most important group of solutions are concerned with managing SC infrastructure (21%).
Corresponding applications support mainly process and asset performance management and thus their approach and applied
methods are largely comparable to those of solutions found in the other dataset.
 International Journal of Production Research 1433

Table 2. Startup companies: Business processes vs. smart technology bundles.

Smart technology bundle
Business process –/–/O –/T/– P/–/– –/T/O P/–/O P/T/– P/T/O Total
Orchestrate 7 1 1 3 1 13
Plan 2 2
Source 2 2
Make 11 1 1 1 14
Deliver 39 3 4 3 49
Return 3 1 1 1 6
Manage SC infrastructure 13 5 1 5 1 1 26
Manage SC human resources 1 1 2
Manage SC procurement & contracts 6 6
Manage SC risk & compliance 3 3
86 11 4 14 7 0 1 123
P = smart people technology, T = smart thing technology, O = smart organisation technology

The process clusters orchestrate and make account for 11% of the use cases in the sample, respectively, and largely
involve on-demand manufacturing and SCM solutions. On-demand solutions apply the principles of cloud computing to the
industrial context, transforming SC operations capabilities into scalable and highly flexible services (see Wu et al. 2013).
Therefore, these applications consist of software-based front-ends for process management as well as back-end resources
(both internal and external) that perform the required process steps. Consequently, these use cases correspond to a compre-
hensive approach that goes beyond solutions that merely integrate a set of related processes. These findings complement
and extend previous research on service-based business architectures in the manufacturing context (see Ehret and Wirtz
2017).
Lastly, the findings derived from the process cluster manage risk and compliance extend the literature on i4.0 sce-
narios and corresponding use cases (see Dijkman et al. 2015). Approaches in this novel field can be categorised at three
levels: strategic-tactical, operational, and real-time. First, solutions at the strategic-tactical level create transparency across
multi-tier SCs and make it possible to develop and implement preventive risk measures by applying predictive analytics
to various sources of information, both external and internal to a firm. Second, predictive analytics can also be used at
the operational level to manage short-term shipment risk caused by adverse weather or infrastructure bottlenecks/outages
by finding alternative routes. Third, use cases for risk detection and response are located at the (near) real-time level and
follow a sense-and-respond approach (see Hahn and Packowski 2015). For this purpose, these solutions monitor various
data sources including social media for critical events and support design and deployment of counter measures to limit the
impact of risk and to recover business operations rapidly (see Sodhi and Tang 2012).

4.3.3. Digital technologies

Analysing these use cases regarding the underlying digital technology suggests that solutions enabled by smart organisation
technologies alone are largely dominant, accounting for 70% of the solutions in the sample. Smart thing technologies in
isolation or combined with smart organisation technologies form the second most important cluster, accounting for 20% of
the total. Several solutions use wearables and augmented reality to enable smart people, especially in mobile scenarios. Only
one solution could be found that integrates all three digital core technologies. Based on these findings, one can conclude
that startup companies innovate primarily via software-based approaches that enable smart organisations and seem to avoid
the technical complexity of hardware-driven solutions.
Additive manufacturing is implemented as a complementary technology in four use cases to support on-demand and
customised manufacturing. Furthermore, only four solutions integrate BCT in their smart technology applications. Thus,
smart solutions that use complementary digital technologies are still in their infancy with startup companies, a result which
is similar to established companies.

4.3.4. Business architecture

The majority of the solutions (56%) implement a service-centric business architecture, while 33% of the use cases involve
the application of a platform-based model. The availability of cloud-based software solutions represents the main enabling
1434 G.J. Hahn

Figure 2. Comparison of SCI dimensions: Established vs. startup companies (in percent).

factor for this development (see Berman et al. 2012). Only 11% of the sample companies follow a traditional transaction-
based approach, a finding which clearly reflects the ongoing service transformation of the economy (see Kowalkowski
et al. 2017).
Except for one platform ecosystem, multi-sided markets dominate the platform-based models. The use case of the
platform ecosystem is concerned with co-creating IoT solutions for various domains, such as smart factory control and
connected products. The prevalence of market platforms may reflect the fact that they can be established with comparably
little effort but involve the risk of being easily copied (see Thomas, Autio, and Gann 2014).
Another observation is that the majority (59%) of the market platforms are engaged in logistics activities. This develop-
ment confirms the digitalisation of the business of logistics service providers and the shift towards non-asset-based business
architectures in this industry. While fourth-party logistics (4PL) providers, which act as general contractors and/or systems
integrators for comprehensive SC services, have been operating for some time (see Win 2008), the market platform-based
approach provides an alternative for this domain. A similar duality of platform- and service-based approaches can be
observed for on-demand SCM solutions in the sample.

4.4. Cross-comparison
For the cross-comparison of the two datasets, this paper examines the three dimensions of the conceptual SCI model (see
Figure 1) and their relationships at a more aggregated level. For these purposes, the analysis considers only the three
categories of business processes (BPs): orchestrate, operate, and support. The seven smart digital technology bundles
are aggregated to four digital technology (DT) categories: smart organisation (bundle –/–/O), smart people (bundles P/–
/– and P/–/O), smart thing (bundles –/T/– and –/T/O), and smart integrated solutions (bundles P/T/– and P/T/O). Due
to their low prevalence in the samples, complementary digital technologies are not considered in this analysis. Concern-
ing business architecture (BA), the three categories are applied as introduced above: product-centric, service-centric, and
platform-centric.
i4.0-enabled use cases belong mostly to the BP category operate, but are even more prevalent in startup companies
than in established companies (59.3 vs. 45.8%). Further investigating this process category, one finds that the sample of
established companies covers mostly manufacturing-related solutions while logistics-related activities are more prevalent
in startup companies. There are also differences in DT usage: smart organisation technologies largely dominate the solu-
tions adopted by startup companies (69.9%) compared with smart thing technologies, which primarily enable applications
in established companies (51.8%). While established companies largely stick with their traditional product-centric BAs
(90.4%), startup companies pursue service-centric (56.1%) and platform-centric (32.5%) approaches when implementing
i4.0-enabled SCI. The results of the cross-comparison are summarised in Figure 2.
Using Cramér’s V, the strength of association between the three SCI dimensions is investigated for both company types.
The results are summarised in Table 3. Based on Cohen (2013), values between 0.1 and 0.3 for Cramér’s V correspond to a
small inter-correlation between the BP and DT dimensions as well as the BP and BA dimensions in established companies. In
startup companies, one can find values of Cramér’s V between 0.3 and 0.5 that indicate medium-strength inter-correlation
between the BA and DT dimensions as well the BA and BP dimensions. Consequently, the BA dimension is pivotal for
 International Journal of Production Research 1435

Table 3. Strength of association between SCI dimensions:

Cramér’s V.
BP vs. DT DT vs. BA BA vs. BP
Established companies 0.281∗∗ 0.206 0.276∗∗
Startup companies 0.177 0.329∗∗∗ 0.304∗∗∗
∗∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗ p < 0.05, ∗p < 0.1

Table 4. Established companies: Observed frequencies divided by expected

probabilities.
DT BA
BP Org Peo Thi Int ProC SerC PlaC
Orch 2.184 (0.865) (0.643) (0.000) 0.830 (1.976) (6.917)
Oper (0.460) 1.092 1.270 (0.437) 1.107 (0.000) (0.000)
Supp 1.191 0.943 0.819 (2.012) 0.939 1.797 (0.000)
(x) = observed probability ≤ 0.05; BA: ProC = product-centric, SerC =
service-centric, PlaC = platform-centric; BP: Orch = orchestrate, Oper = oper-
ate, Supp = support; DT: Org = organisation, Peo = people, Thi = thing, Int
= integrated

Table 5. Startup companies: Observed frequencies divided by expected probabil-

ities.
DT BP
BA Org Peo Thi Int Orch Oper Supp
ProC (0.409) (2.396) 2.460 (0.000) (0.676) (0.602) 1.900
SerC 0.912 (0.972) 1.283 (1.783) 1.234 0.806 1.301
PlaC 1.359 (0.559) (0.000) (0.000) (0.710) 1.474 (0.166)
(x) = observed probability ≤ 0.05; BA: ProC = product-centric, SerC = service-
centric, PlaC = platform-centric; BP: Orch = orchestrate, Oper = operate, Supp
= support; DT: Org = organisation, Peo = people, Thi = thing, Int = integrated

startup companies and implies a business-driven approach to i4.0-enabled SCI. In contrast, established companies pursue a
problem-driven approach corresponding to the BP dimension.
Further investigating the relationship between associated SCI dimensions, observed frequencies are divided by expected
probabilities, assuming stochastic independence. Consequently, values above (below) 1 indicate a positive (negative) rela-
tionship. The results for i4.0-enabled SCI in established companies (see Table 4) show that operational processes are
positively related to smart thing technologies and a product-centric BA. In contrast, while orchestrating and support-
ing processes are positively related to smart organisation technologies and a service-centric BA. From these findings
one can conclude that established companies build on their existing product-centric engineering capabilities to develop
novel i4.0-enabled technical solutions. Moreover, they have begun providing complementary service-centric approaches for
non-operational processes.
Similar analyses are conducted for startup companies (see Table 5). Here, one can observe that i4.0-enabled use cases that
involve implementing smart thing technologies are positively related to product-centric and service-centric approaches. In
contrast, platform-centric approaches more frequently rely on smart organisation technologies. With respect to BP, one can
observe that operational processes are more frequently implemented in platform-centric approaches while non-operational
processes are positively related to service-centric approaches. Comparing these results with the findings derived from estab-
lished companies, one can conclude that startup companies clearly distinguish between operational and non-operational
processes when determining the corresponding BA.
1436 G.J. Hahn

5. Discussion
5.1. Current status and future prospects of i4.0-enabled SCI
Business processes. The findings largely confirm the envisioned use cases enabled by i4.0 technology in the SC context
(see Porter and Heppelmann 2014). While smart factory applications have gained ground by focussing on automated oper-
ation, orchestration, and optimisation of value creation and supporting processes in the manufacturing context, the growing
number of use cases in logistics-related processes is focussed primarily on transportation activities, largely omitting issues
involving warehousing and inventory management. Future prospects thus include the implementation and integration of
more comprehensive logistics-related concepts to develop smart SCs beyond the boundaries of single factories and com-
panies. Reverse logistics as well as issues of sustainability and the circular economy on a more general level are only
marginally covered and thus represent areas for further use-case development.
Furthermore, the analysis revealed novel approaches to SC risk management using predictive analytics and real-time
sense-and-respond approaches. This finding reinforces the importance of risk management in the SC context, which has
received only limited attention in the discussion of i4.0. Finally, the analysis revealed increasing interest in on-demand
solutions, which have emerged in particular in startup companies. This implies a shift of the SC operating model and
corresponding business processes towards scalability and flexibility even though the i4.0 paradigm had originally been
focussed on improving productivity (see Kagermann, Wahlster, and Helbig 2013).
Digital technologies. This paper distinguishes between two types of digital technologies: (i) a digital core of smart
technologies that involve mainly analytics-based intelligence and ubiquitous interconnection of people and things, and (ii)
non-IoT-based technologies such as additive manufacturing and BCT that complement the digital core. Smart organisa-
tion and smart thing technologies largely dominate the set of core technologies applied in SC use cases, offering various
opportunities for novel applications that rely on smart people technologies. The infrequent implementation of smart people
technologies is rather surprising given the human-centric approach of i4.0 (see Kagermann, Wahlster, and Helbig 2013).
Moreover, the analysis revealed that i4.0-enabled SC use cases involve companies that rely on smart technologies
and have only now begun to integrate complementary technologies, which may constitute the second stage of the digital
SC transformation. Corresponding benefits and potential use cases (see Waller and Fawcett 2014; Blossey, Eisenhardt, and
Hahn 2019) still need to be validated empirically to demonstrate their relevance to the digital transformation of the industrial
sector.
Business architecture. The analysis revealed that established companies have thus far mostly stuck with their product-
centric business architecture and use i4.0 technology only to increase operational efficiency. In contrast, novel value-added
customer services that involve on-demand cloud-like solutions and the use of data are more prevalent in startup companies.
While established industrial companies have only now begun to switch to a service-based business architecture by extending
their ICT capabilities, native ICT companies in turn use novel digital technology to translate their service-based approach
to the physical world of SC operations. This development reinforces the fact that the digitalisation is blurring industry
boundaries due to the convergence of the physical and virtual worlds and thus increases competition in these fields (see
Atluri, Dietz, and Henke 2017).
Another finding relates to the prevalence of market-based platforms in comparison with platform ecosystems. The
popularity of market platforms can be illustrated with the finding that several startup companies in the sample claim to be
the ‘Uber or Airbnb of xyz’. This may reflect the fact that building ecosystems is highly complex and requires substantial
financial investments; such objectives can be accomplished only by sharing critical resources with business partners (see
van Alstyne, Parker, and Choudary 2016). On the other hand, an ecosystem could provide a more sustainable competitive
advantage insofar as it is more difficult to imitate and all members need to make specific investments when joining such a
community. Because platform ecosystems combine the transaction logic of market platforms with elements of production
and innovation, i.e. value co-creation (Thomas, Autio, and Gann 2014), it will be interesting to see whether ecosystems
complement or substitute for pure market platforms in the SC context.

5.2. Relationships of SCI dimensions

The overall portfolio of covered business processes is largely similar for established and startup companies, while there
are substantial differences between them in the use of digital technologies and the implemented business architecture.
Consequently, established and startup companies pursue distinct approaches to i4.0-enabled SCI. Established companies
mostly develop technical solutions following a more incremental approach to innovation by building on their established
capabilities and existing assets (‘problem-driven SCI’). If they adopt a more radical posture, they can translate their existing
capabilities into novel approaches, such as developing software for smart factory management.
 International Journal of Production Research 1437

In contrast, startup companies approach i4.0-enabled SCI differently, focussing on comprehensive business visions
such as on-demand solutions and developing novel service-centric or platform-centric operating models (‘business-driven
SCI’). Consequently, cloud-based software and ‘asset-light’ smart organisation technologies that limit a solution’s technical
complexity prevail among these companies to more effectively attract financial investors. These findings extend previous
research on the interdependencies of SCI dimensions (see Arlbjørn, de Haas, and Munksgaard 2011) and contribute to the
discussion on distinct models of innovation in established and startup companies (see Freeman and Engel 2007).
Established companies have begun their service transformation, but they have focussed mainly on non-operational
processes thus far and operational processes are therefore lagging behind from this viewpoint. In contrast, startup companies
predominantly pursue a (market) platform-based business approach to operational processes while they also implement
service-centric approaches for non-operational processes. Consequently, i4.0-enabled SCI will promote outsourcing (or
crowdsourcing) of operational SC processes via market platforms. This finding reinforces the fact that the digitalisation
lowers transaction costs while shifting firm boundaries. In a similar manner, van Alstyne, Parker, and Choudary (2016)
advocate the primacy of the platform-centric approach. The data analysed here suggests, however, that operational SC
processes can provide opportunities for differentiation (see Matthyssens and Vandenbempt 2008) that require a service-based
business approach and thus prevent out-/crowdsourcing to a certain extent.

6. Conclusion and outlook

Motivated by the contemporary digital revolution and its business impact, this paper investigated the implications of the
digitalisation of the industrial sector on SCM. The concept of SCI served as the theoretical lens for this research. Following
a theory elaboration approach, this study was organised along two lines: first, this paper adapted the conceptual SCI model
of Arlbjørn, de Haas, and Munksgaard (2011) to structure the constitutive dimensions of i4.0-enabled SCI for analysis.
Second, SCA was applied to examine two large-scale secondary datasets on i4.0-enabled SC use cases from established and
startup companies. This provided insight into the current state of and future prospects for the digital transformation of the
industrial sector and the digitalisation of SC operating models. Analysing the interdependencies of SCI dimensions revealed
distinct approaches to i4.0-enabled SCI in established and startup companies.
The key findings can be summarised as follows: first, comprehensive approaches to digital SCM are still in their infancy
insofar as extant use cases cover mostly standalone solutions related to the smart factory or transportation logistics. Due
to on-demand approaches promoted by startup companies, the scalability and flexibility of SC operating models have
gained ground in the discussion of the benefits of digitalisation that apply beyond productivity improvement. Second, i4.0-
enabled SC use cases are dominated by smart organisation and smart thing technologies, largely omitting the human-centric
approach of the i4.0 paradigm and corresponding smart people technologies. Although advanced digital technologies such
as blockchain and robotics are intensively discussed in the SC context, companies have only now begun to integrate corre-
sponding technology concepts. Third, solutions adopted by startup companies are radically changing SC operating models
by relying on data analytics and the platform economy. In contrast, established companies seem to maintain their business
architectures, preferring to integrate novel digital technology into their existing approaches to drive operational efficiency
and productivity.
Lastly, established and startup companies approach i4.0-enabled SCI differently. While established companies pursue
a problem-driven approach by building on their existing assets and engineering capabilities, startup companies follow an
asset-light, business-driven approach. At the more granular level, there are no differences between established and startup
companies with respect to the digitalisation of non-operational processes. For operational SC processes, distinct digitalisa-
tion strategies exist: platform-based approaches can be used for standardised processes that allow for crowdsourcing while
service-based internal provision is more suitable when differentiation involves additional value potential.
The limitations of this study pertain mostly to the datasets and the SCA approach. This paper cross-compares two
distinct datasets comprising more than 200 use cases involving i4.0-enabled SCI to provide rich evidence and to reduce the
potential for bias. The generalisability of the results depends, however, on the scope of the datasets. Although a rigorous
SCA approach was applied to ensure the reliability and validity of the results, interpreting the results depends on the coder’s
individual assessment of the data.
These limitations suggest several avenues for future research: first, additional datasets of i4.0-related use cases could
be examined, e.g. drawing data from France or Japan, which have launched similar state-funded initiatives promoting
the digitalisation of the industrial sector. This would facilitate further analysis of established companies, their approaches
to i4.0-enabled SCI, and the influence of company size as well as industry sector on the implications of digitalisation.
Second, multiple in-depth case studies could be used to examine the drivers, success factors, and challenges related to i4.0-
enabled SCI in greater detail. Such an approach could provide insight into the future role in the digital transformation of
1438 G.J. Hahn

complementary technologies such as additive manufacturing and the blockchain. Finally, business impacts and especially
improved productivity could be analysed to determine the actual benefits of digital SC transformation.

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Gregor Blossey (Research Associate at GGS Heilbronn, Germany), who supported the content analysis as a second coder.
I also thank three anonymous referees and the associate editor for providing value feedback which has helped improve this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Gerd J. Hahn http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0036-9882

References
Abdelkafi, N., and M. Pero. 2018. “Supply Chain Innovation-driven Business Models: Exploratory Analysis and Implications for
Management.” Business Process Management Journal 24 (2): 589–608.
Allianz Industrie 4.0 Baden-Wuerttemberg. 2018. “100 Orte Industrie 4.0.” Accessed 30 June 2018. http://www.i40-bw.de/de/100-orte-fuer
-industrie-4-0-in-baden-wuerttemberg.
Angel.co. 2018. “Angellist: Where the World Meets Startups.” Accessed 30 June 2018. https://angel.co.
APICS. 2018. “APICS Value Chain Frameworks.” Accessed 1 August 2018. http://www.apics.org/apics-for-business/frameworks.
Arlbjørn, J. S., H. de Haas, and K. B. Munksgaard. 2011. “Exploring Supply Chain Innovation.” Logistics Research 3 (1): 3–18.
Arlbjørn, J. S., and A. Paulraj. 2013. “Special Topic Forum on Innovation in Business Networks From a Supply Chain Perspective:
Current Status and Opportunities for Future Research.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 49 (4): 3–11.
Arnold, C., D. Kiel, and K.-I. Voigt. 2016. “How the Industrial Internet of Things Changes Business Models in Different Manufacturing
Industries.” International Journal of Innovation Management 20 (8): 1640015.
Atluri, V., M. Dietz, and N. Henke. 2017. “Competing in a World of Sectors Without Borders.” McKinsey Quarterly 54 (3): 33–47.
Berman, S. J., L. Kesterson-Townes, A. Marshall, and R. Srivathsa. 2012. “How Cloud Computing Enables Process and Business Model
Innovation.” Strategy & Leadership 40 (4): 27–35.
Bharadwaj, A., O. A. El Sawy, P. A. Pavlou, and N. Venkatraman. 2013. “Digital Business Strategy: Toward a Next Generation of
Insights.” MIS Quarterly 37 (2): 471–482.
Blossey, G., J. Eisenhardt, and G. J. Hahn. 2019. “Blockchain Technology in Supply Chain Management: An Application Perspective.”
Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2019, Grand Wailea, Maui, 6885–6893
Brettel, M., N. Friederichsen, M. Keller, and M. Rosenberg. 2014. “How Virtualization, Decentralization and Network Building
Change the Manufacturing Landscape: An Industry 4.0 Perspective.” International Journal of Mechanical, Industrial Science
and Engineering 8 (1): 37–44.
Buer, S.-V., J. O. Strandhagen, and F. T. S. Chan. 2018. “The Link Between Industry 4.0 and Lean Manufacturing: Mapping Current
Research and Establishing a Research Agenda.” International Journal of Production Research 3 (4): 1–17.
Busse, C., and C. M. Wallenburg. 2011. “Innovation Management of Logistics Service Providers: Foundations, Review, and Research
Agenda.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 41 (2): 187–218.
Büyüközkan, G., and F. Göçer. 2018. “Digital Supply Chain: Literature Review and a Proposed Framework for Future Research.”
Computers in Industry 97: 157–177.
Carrillo, J. E., C. Druehl, and J. Hsuan. 2015. “Introduction to Innovation WITHIN and ACROSS Borders: A Review and Future
Directions.” Decision Sciences 46 (2): 225–265.
Cohen, J. 2013. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hoboken/NJ: Taylor and Francis.
CSCMP. 2013. “Supply Chain Management Terms and Glossary.” Accessed 1 August 2018. http://cscmp.org/CSCMP/Educate/SCM_
Definitions_and_Glossary_of_Terms/CSCMP/Educate/SCM_Definitions_and_Glossary_of_Terms.aspx.
Dijkman, R. M., B. Sprenkels, T. Peeters, and A. Janssen. 2015. “Business Models for the Internet of Things.” International Journal of
Information Management 35 (6): 672–678.
Ehret, M., and J. Wirtz. 2017. “Unlocking Value From Machines: Business Models and the Industrial Internet of Things.” Journal of
Marketing Management 33 (1/2): 111–130.
Fawcett, S. E., and M. A. Waller. 2014. “Supply Chain Game Changers-mega, Nano, and Virtual Trends- and Forces that Impede Supply
Chain Design (i.e. Building a Winning Team).” Journal of Business Logistics 35 (3): 157–164.
Fisher, G., and H. Aguinis. 2017. “Using Theory Elaboration to Make Theoretical Advancements.” Organizational Research Methods 20
(3): 438–464.
Flint, D. J., and E. Larsson. 2007. “Supply Chain Innovation.” In Handbook of Global Supply Chain Management, edited by J. T. Mentzer,
M. B. Myers, and T. P. Stank, 475–486. Thousand Oaks/CA: Sage Publications.
 International Journal of Production Research 1439

Frank, M. 2012. Don’t Get SMACked: How Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud Technologies are Reshaping the Enterprise. Cognizant.
Freeman, J., and J. S. Engel. 2007. “Models of Innovation: Startups and Mature Corporations.” California Management Review 50 (1):
94–119.
Friedman, Z. 2017. These 197 Tech Companies are the World’s Most Valuable Unicorns. Forbes. Accessed 30 May 2017.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2017/05/30/tech-unicorns.
Gawer, A., and M. A. Cusumano. 2014. “Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 31
(3): 417–433.
Gunasekaran, A., and E. Ngai. 2004. “Information Systems in Supply Chain Integration and Management.” European Journal of
Operational Research 159 (2): 269–295.
Hahn, G. J., and J. Packowski. 2015. “A Perspective on Applications of In-memory Analytics in Supply Chain Management.” Decision
Support Systems 76: 45–52.
Hermann, M., T. Pentek, and B. Otto. 2015. Design Principles for Industrie 4.0 Scenarios: A Literature Review. Working Paper 01/2015,
TU Dortmund/Germany.
Hofmann, E., and M. Rüsch. 2017. “Industry 4.0 and the Current Status as well as Future Prospects on Logistics.” Computers in Industry
89: 23–34.
Iansiti, M., and K. R. Lakhani. 2017. “The Truth About Blockchain.” Harvard Business Review 95 (1): 118–127.
Jauch, L. R., R. N. Osborn, and T. N. Martin. 1980. “Structured Content Analysis of Cases: A Complementary Method for Organizational
Research.” Academy of Management Review 5 (4): 517–525.
Kagermann, H. 2015. “Change Through Digitization: Value Creation in the Age of Industry 4.0.” In Management of Permanent Change,
edited by H. Albach, H. Meffert, and A. Pinkwart, 23–45. Wiesbaden/Germany: Springer Fachmedien.
Kagermann, H., W. Wahlster, and J. Helbig. 2013. “Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Final
Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group.” Frankfurt/Germany: Forschungsunion and Acatech.
Kiel, D., C. Arnold, and K.-I. Voigt. 2017. “The Influence of the Industrial Internet of Things on Business Models of Established
Manufacturing Companies: A Business Level Perspective.” Technovation 68: 4–19.
Kim, S.-H., M. A. Cohen, and S. Netessine. 2007. “Performance Contracting in After-sales Service Supply Chains.” Management Science
53 (12): 1843–1858.
Kowalkowski, C., H. Gebauer, B. Kamp, and G. Parry. 2017. “Servitization and Deservitization: Overview, Concepts, and Definitions.”
Industrial Marketing Management 60: 4–10.
Kusiak, A. 2018. “Smart Manufacturing.” International Journal of Production Research 56 (1–2): 508–517.
Lakhani, K. R., M. Iansiti, and K. Herman. 2014. “GE and the Industrial Internet.” Harvard Business School, Case 614-032, April 2014
(Revised March 2015).
Laudien, S. M., and B. Daxböck. 2016. “The Influence of the Industrial Internet of Things on Business Model Design: A Qualitative-
empirical Study.” International Journal of Innovation Management 20 (8): 1640014.
Lee, J., B. Bagheri, and H.-A. Kao. 2015. “A Cyber-physical Systems Architecture for Industry 4.0-based Manufacturing Systems.”
Manufacturing Letters 3: 18–23.
Leswign, K. 2016. “The 5 Most Valuable Public Companies are All Tech Companies.” Business Insider Germany. Accessed 1 August
2016. http://www.businessinsider.de/4-most-valuable-public-companies-all-tech-companies-2016-8.
Li, S., Y. Liu, and S. Bandyopadhyay. 2010. “Network Effects in Online Two-sided Market Platforms: A Research Note.” Decision
Support Systems 49 (2): 245–249.
Li, G., H. Yang, L. Sun, and A. S. Sohal. 2009. “The Impact of IT Implementation on Supply Chain Integration and Performance.”
International Journal of Production Economics 120 (1): 125–138.
Liao, Y., F. Deschamps, E. D. F. R. Loures, and L. F. P. Ramos. 2016. “Past, Present and Future of Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature
Review and Research Agenda Proposal.” International Journal of Production Research 55 (12): 3609–3629.
Matthyssens, P., and K. Vandenbempt. 2008. “Moving From Basic Offerings to Value-added Solutions: Strategies, Barriers and
Alignment.” Industrial Marketing Management 37 (3): 316–328.
McKinsey Digital. 2015. Industry 4.0: How to Navigate Digitization of the Manufacturing Sector. McKinsey & Company.
Moeuf, A., R. Pellerin, S. Lamouri, S. Tamayo-Giraldo, and R. Barbaray. 2018. “The Industrial Management of SMEs in the Era of
Industry 4.0.” International Journal of Production Research 56 (3): 1118–1136.
Munksgaard, K. B., J. Stentoft, and A. Paulraj. 2014. “Value-based Supply Chain Innovation.” Operations Management Research 7 (3–4):
50–62.
Nambisan, S., K. Lyytinen, A. Majchrzak, and M. Song. 2017. “Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management
Research in a Digital World.” MIS Quarterly 41 (1): 223–238.
Porter, M. E., and J. E. Heppelmann. 2014. “How Smart, Connected Products are Transforming Competition.” Harvard Business Review
92 (11): 64–88.
Porter, M. E., and J. E. Heppelmann. 2015. “How Smart, Connected Products are Transforming Companies.” Harvard Business Review
93 (10): 96–114.
Porter, M. E., and V. E. Millar. 1985. “How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage.” Harvard Business Review 63 (4): 149.
Prajogo, D., and J. Olhager. 2012. “Supply Chain Integration and Performance: The Effects of Long-term Relationships, Information
Technology and Sharing, and Logistics Integration.” International Journal of Production Economics 135 (1): 514–522.
1440 G.J. Hahn

Prange, C., and B. B. Schlegelmilch. 2010. “Heading for the Next Innovation Archetype?” Journal of Business Strategy 31 (1):
46–55.
Reim, W., and V. Parida. 2015. “Product-service Systems (PSS) Business Models and Tactics: A Systematic Literature Review.” Journal
of Cleaner Production 97: 61–75.
Roy, S., K. Sivakumar, and I. F. Wilkinson. 2004. “Innovation Generation in Supply Chain Relationships: A Conceptual Model and
Research Propositions.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (1): 61–79.
Rüßmann, M., M. Lorenz, P. Gerbert, M. Waldner, J. Justus, P. Engel, and M. Harnisch. 2015. Industry 4.0: The Future of Productivity
and Growth in Manufacturing Industries. The Boston Consulting Group.
Schmidt, B., S. Rutkowsky, I. Petersen, F. Klötzke, C. M. Wallenburg, and L. Einmahl. 2015. Digital Supply Chains: Increasingly Critical
for Competitive Edge. A.T. Kearney / WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management.
Schneider, P. 2018. “Managerial Challenges of Industry 4.0: An Empirically Backed Research Agenda for a Nascent Field.” Review of
Managerial Science 12 (3): 803–848.
Schrauf, S., and P. Berttram. 2016. Industry 4.0: How Digitization Makes the Supply Chain More Efficient, Agile, and Customer-focused.
PWC Strategy&.
Seuring, S., and S. Gold. 2012. “Conducting Content-analysis Based Literature Reviews in Supply Chain Management.” Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 17 (5): 544–555.
Shelton, T. 2013. Business Models for the Social Mobile Cloud: Transform Your Business Using Social Media, Mobile Internet, and Cloud
Computing. Hoboken/NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sodhi, M. S., and C. S. Tang. 2012. “Response as a Mitigation Approach.” In Managing Supply Chain Risk, edited by M. S. Sodhi and C.
S., Tang, 65–76. Boston/MA: Springer.
Stadtler, H. 2005. “Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning – Basics, Overview and Challenges.” European Journal of
Operational Research 163 (3): 575–588.
Stevens, G. C., and M. Johnson. 2016. “Integrating the Supply Chain . . . 25 Years on.” International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 46 (1): 19–42.
Tang, C. S. 2006. “Perspectives in Supply Chain Risk Management.” International Journal of Production Economics 103 (2): 451–488.
Tao, F., Q. Qi, A. Liu, and A. Kusiak. 2018. “Data-driven Smart Manufacturing.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 48, Part C (July
2018): 157–169.
Täuscher, K., and S. M. Laudien. 2018. “Understanding Platform Business Models: A Mixed Methods Study of Marketplaces.” European
Management Journal 36 (3): 319–329.
Thoben, K.-D., S. Wiesner, and T. Wuest. 2017. “‘Industrie 4.0’ and Smart Manufacturing: A Review of Research Issues and Application
Examples.” International Journal of Automation Technology 11 (1): 4–16.
Thomas, L. D. W., E. Autio, and D. M. Gann. 2014. “Architectural Leverage: Putting Platforms in Context.” Academy of Management
Perspectives 28 (2): 198–219.
Tortorella, G. L., and D. Fettermann. 2018. “Implementation of Industry 4.0 and Lean Production in Brazilian Manufacturing Companies.”
International Journal of Production Research 56 (8): 2975–2987.
Trist, E. L., and K. W. Bamforth. 1951. “Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-getting: An
Examination of the Psychological Situation and Defences of a Work Group in Relation to the Social Structure and Technological
Content of the Work System.” Human Relations 4 (1): 3–38.
van Alstyne, M. W., G. G. Parker, and S. P. Choudary. 2016. “Pipelines, Platforms, and the New Rules of Strategy.” Harvard Business
Review 94 (4): 54–62.
Versteeg, G., and H. Bouwman. 2006. “Business Architecture: A New Paradigm to Relate Business Strategy to ICT.” Information Systems
Frontiers 8 (2): 91–102.
Wagner, S. M.. 2012. “Tapping Supplier Innovation.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 48 (2): 37–52.
Waller, M. A., and S. E. Fawcett. 2013. “Data Science, Predictive Analytics, and Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform Supply
Chain Design and Management.” Journal of Business Logistics 34 (2): 77–84.
Waller, M. A., and S. E. Fawcett. 2014. “Click Here to Print a Maker Movement Supply Chain: How Invention and Entrepreneurship Will
Disrupt Supply Chain Design.” Journal of Business Logistics 35 (2): 99–102.
WEF. 2017. Digital Transformation Initiative: Unlocking $100 Trillion for Business and Society from Digital Transformation. World
Economic Forum.
Win, A. 2008. “The Value a 4PL Provider Can Contribute to an Organisation.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 38 (9): 674–684.
Wu, D., M. J. Greer, D. W. Rosen, and D. Schaefer. 2013. “Cloud Manufacturing: Strategic Vision and State-of-the-art.” Journal of
Manufacturing Systems 32 (4): 564–579.
Xu, L. D., E. L. Xu, and L. Li. 2018. “Industry 4.0: State of the Art and Future Trends.” International Journal of Production Research 56
(8): 2941–2962.
Yin, Y., K. E. Stecke, and D. Li. 2018. “The Evolution of Production Systems From Industry 2.0 Through Industry 4.0.” International
Journal of Production Research 56 (1–2): 848–861.
 International Journal of Production Research 1441

Appendix

Table A1. Categories and corresponding definitions used in the SCA.

Category Item Definition
Business Processes - Orchestrate see Subsect. 3.2
- Operate: Plan, Source, Make, Deliver, Return see Subsect. 3.2
- Support: Manage SC Infrastructure, Human Resources, see Subsect. 3.2
Procurement & Contracts, Risk & Compliance
Digital Technologies - Core Technologies: Smart People, Smart Thing, see Subsect. 3.3.1
Smart Organisation
- Complementary Technologies: Hardware-driven see Subsect. 3.3.2
(e.g. additive manufacturing, robotics, and drones),
Software-driven (esp. blockchain technology)
Business Architecture - Product-centric see Subsect. 3.4
- Service-centric see Subsect. 3.4
- Platform-centric see Subsect. 3.4