Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0
This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management curre...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Onřej Bíba [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Tschechisch ; Englisch ; Schwedisch |
| Erschienen: |
2018 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Trendy v podnikání - Vydavatelství ZČU v Plzni, 2015, 8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:8 ; year:2018 ; number:2 ; pages:39-47 |
| Links: |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ065968735 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ065968735 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230309054414.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230228s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||cze c | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ065968735 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a cze |a eng |a swe | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a HF5001-6182 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Onřej Bíba |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Industry 4.0 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Industrial internet of things | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Fourth industrial revolution | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Benchmark | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Qualitative research | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Business | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Trendy v podnikání |d Vydavatelství ZČU v Plzni, 2015 |g 8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47 |w (DE-627)DOAJ000110043 |x 27880079 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:8 |g year:2018 |g number:2 |g pages:39-47 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.24132/jbt.2018.8.2.39_47 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAnZIo7WuJgump9AUc2TxzgNXw-ki6rk/view |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1805-0603 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 8 |j 2018 |e 2 |h 39-47 | ||
| author_variant |
o b ob |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:27880079:2018----::oadmauaiiynietfctookyecm |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2018 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
HF |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| allfields |
(DE-627)DOAJ065968735 (DE-599)DOAJ8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb cze eng swe HF5001-6182 Onřej Bíba verfasserin aut Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0. Industry 4.0 Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research Industrial internet of things Fourth industrial revolution Benchmark Qualitative research Business In Trendy v podnikání Vydavatelství ZČU v Plzni, 2015 8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47 (DE-627)DOAJ000110043 27880079 nnns volume:8 year:2018 number:2 pages:39-47 https://doi.org/10.24132/jbt.2018.8.2.39_47 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb kostenfrei https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAnZIo7WuJgump9AUc2TxzgNXw-ki6rk/view kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1805-0603 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 8 2018 2 39-47 |
| spelling |
(DE-627)DOAJ065968735 (DE-599)DOAJ8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb cze eng swe HF5001-6182 Onřej Bíba verfasserin aut Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0. Industry 4.0 Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research Industrial internet of things Fourth industrial revolution Benchmark Qualitative research Business In Trendy v podnikání Vydavatelství ZČU v Plzni, 2015 8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47 (DE-627)DOAJ000110043 27880079 nnns volume:8 year:2018 number:2 pages:39-47 https://doi.org/10.24132/jbt.2018.8.2.39_47 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb kostenfrei https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAnZIo7WuJgump9AUc2TxzgNXw-ki6rk/view kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1805-0603 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 8 2018 2 39-47 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
(DE-627)DOAJ065968735 (DE-599)DOAJ8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb cze eng swe HF5001-6182 Onřej Bíba verfasserin aut Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0. Industry 4.0 Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research Industrial internet of things Fourth industrial revolution Benchmark Qualitative research Business In Trendy v podnikání Vydavatelství ZČU v Plzni, 2015 8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47 (DE-627)DOAJ000110043 27880079 nnns volume:8 year:2018 number:2 pages:39-47 https://doi.org/10.24132/jbt.2018.8.2.39_47 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb kostenfrei https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAnZIo7WuJgump9AUc2TxzgNXw-ki6rk/view kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1805-0603 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 8 2018 2 39-47 |
| allfieldsGer |
(DE-627)DOAJ065968735 (DE-599)DOAJ8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb cze eng swe HF5001-6182 Onřej Bíba verfasserin aut Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0. Industry 4.0 Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research Industrial internet of things Fourth industrial revolution Benchmark Qualitative research Business In Trendy v podnikání Vydavatelství ZČU v Plzni, 2015 8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47 (DE-627)DOAJ000110043 27880079 nnns volume:8 year:2018 number:2 pages:39-47 https://doi.org/10.24132/jbt.2018.8.2.39_47 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb kostenfrei https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAnZIo7WuJgump9AUc2TxzgNXw-ki6rk/view kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1805-0603 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 8 2018 2 39-47 |
| allfieldsSound |
(DE-627)DOAJ065968735 (DE-599)DOAJ8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb cze eng swe HF5001-6182 Onřej Bíba verfasserin aut Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0. Industry 4.0 Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research Industrial internet of things Fourth industrial revolution Benchmark Qualitative research Business In Trendy v podnikání Vydavatelství ZČU v Plzni, 2015 8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47 (DE-627)DOAJ000110043 27880079 nnns volume:8 year:2018 number:2 pages:39-47 https://doi.org/10.24132/jbt.2018.8.2.39_47 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb kostenfrei https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAnZIo7WuJgump9AUc2TxzgNXw-ki6rk/view kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1805-0603 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 8 2018 2 39-47 |
| language |
Czech English Swedish |
| source |
In Trendy v podnikání 8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47 volume:8 year:2018 number:2 pages:39-47 |
| sourceStr |
In Trendy v podnikání 8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47 volume:8 year:2018 number:2 pages:39-47 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Industry 4.0 Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research Industrial internet of things Fourth industrial revolution Benchmark Qualitative research Business |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Trendy v podnikání |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Onřej Bíba @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2018-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
DOAJ000110043 |
| id |
DOAJ065968735 |
| language_de |
tschechisch englisch schwedisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ065968735</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309054414.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||cze c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ065968735</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">cze</subfield><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">swe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">HF5001-6182</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Onřej Bíba</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Industry 4.0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Industrial internet of things</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fourth industrial revolution</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Benchmark</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Qualitative research</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Business</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Trendy v podnikání</subfield><subfield code="d">Vydavatelství ZČU v Plzni, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)DOAJ000110043</subfield><subfield code="x">27880079</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:8</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:39-47</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.24132/jbt.2018.8.2.39_47</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAnZIo7WuJgump9AUc2TxzgNXw-ki6rk/view</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1805-0603</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">8</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="h">39-47</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
H - Social Science |
| author |
Onřej Bíba |
| spellingShingle |
Onřej Bíba misc HF5001-6182 misc Industry 4.0 misc Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research misc Industrial internet of things misc Fourth industrial revolution misc Benchmark misc Qualitative research misc Business Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 |
| authorStr |
Onřej Bíba |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)DOAJ000110043 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
HF5001-6182 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
27880079 |
| topic_title |
HF5001-6182 Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 Industry 4.0 Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research Industrial internet of things Fourth industrial revolution Benchmark Qualitative research |
| topic |
misc HF5001-6182 misc Industry 4.0 misc Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research misc Industrial internet of things misc Fourth industrial revolution misc Benchmark misc Qualitative research misc Business |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc HF5001-6182 misc Industry 4.0 misc Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research misc Industrial internet of things misc Fourth industrial revolution misc Benchmark misc Qualitative research misc Business |
| topic_browse |
misc HF5001-6182 misc Industry 4.0 misc Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research misc Industrial internet of things misc Fourth industrial revolution misc Benchmark misc Qualitative research misc Business |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Trendy v podnikání |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
DOAJ000110043 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Trendy v podnikání |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)DOAJ000110043 |
| title |
Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ065968735 (DE-599)DOAJ8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb |
| title_full |
Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 |
| author_sort |
Onřej Bíba |
| journal |
Trendy v podnikání |
| journalStr |
Trendy v podnikání |
| callnumber-first-code |
H |
| lang_code |
cze eng swe |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2018 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
39 |
| author_browse |
Onřej Bíba |
| container_volume |
8 |
| class |
HF5001-6182 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Onřej Bíba |
| title_sort |
towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 |
| callnumber |
HF5001-6182 |
| title_auth |
Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 |
| abstract |
This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0. |
| abstractGer |
This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0 |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.24132/jbt.2018.8.2.39_47 https://doaj.org/article/8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAnZIo7WuJgump9AUc2TxzgNXw-ki6rk/view https://doaj.org/toc/1805-0603 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
DOAJ000110043 |
| callnumber-subject |
HF - Commerce |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| callnumber-a |
HF5001-6182 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T17:33:04.027Z |
| _version_ |
1803580063379095553 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ065968735</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309054414.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||cze c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ065968735</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">cze</subfield><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">swe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">HF5001-6182</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Onřej Bíba</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Towards measurability and identification of key benchmarks of industry 4.0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This study presents an analysis, comparison and evaluation of the Industry 4.0 Concept, with the focus on the measurement of its overall benefit. Based on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, outcomes of expert studies and analyzes of top consultancy firms, we infer that senior management currently has very indistinct ideas and exaggerated expectations of the content and benefits of the Industry 4.0 Concept. The result of this confusion is often either the rejection or questioning of the revolutionary aspect of Industry 4.0 and its overall benefits. Consecutively, executives are unable to effectively manage business processes towards gaining market benefits. The study identifies three major elements that are associated with management’s unclear or exaggerated expectations about Industry 4.0 Concept. These factors are: the unclear theoretical basis; the broad practical focus of the concept itself and ultimately also the excessively misuse, exploitation and overly general application of the given term by marketers and consulting firms. Together with that Industry 4.0 faces an absence of generally accepted Key Benchmarks of Industry 4.0. The main impact of this is that there are currently very limited ways or criteria to differentiate the degree of companies’ involvement in the Industry 4.0.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Industry 4.0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Industrial internet of things; Fourth industrial revolution; Benchmark; Qualitative research</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Industrial internet of things</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fourth industrial revolution</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Benchmark</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Qualitative research</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Business</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Trendy v podnikání</subfield><subfield code="d">Vydavatelství ZČU v Plzni, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">8(2018), 2, Seite 39-47</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)DOAJ000110043</subfield><subfield code="x">27880079</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:8</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:39-47</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.24132/jbt.2018.8.2.39_47</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/8133457760154c3d9933841f80a142eb</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAnZIo7WuJgump9AUc2TxzgNXw-ki6rk/view</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1805-0603</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">8</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="h">39-47</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4010477 |