Quality 5

sustainability
Review
Classification of Industry 4.0 for Total Quality
Management: A Review
Erhan Baran 1, * and Tulay Korkusuz Polat 2
1 Electronic and Automation Department, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Turkey

2 Industrial Engineering Department, Sakarya University, Sakarya 54050, Turkey; korkusuz@sakarya.edu.tr
* Correspondence: erhanbaran@gazi.edu.tr; Tel.: +90-3128000614
Abstract: The philosophy of total quality management is based on meeting quality requirements
in all processes and meeting customer needs quickly and accurately through the contribution of all
employees. This concept means that all the processes in an enterprise, all the technology used, and
all the workforce employed represent the total quality of the enterprise, with the necessary controls
and corrections made to ensure that the quality is sustainable. In this study, a detailed literature
review and classification study regarding Industry 4.0, Industry 4.0 technologies, and quality has
been carried out. The place and importance of quality in Industry 4.0 applications have been revealed
by this classification study. In previous studies in the literature, the relationship between Industry 4.0
technologies and quality has not been examined. With this classification study, the importance of
quality in Industry 4.0 has emerged, and an analysis has been conducted regarding which quality
criteria are used and how often.
Keywords: Industry 4.0; quality; technology; quality management; sustainability

Citation: Baran, E.; Korkusuz Polat,
1. Introduction
T. Classification of Industry 4.0 for
Total Quality Management: A Companies worldwide face significant challenges due to recent environmental, social,
Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3329. economic, and technological developments [1]. To meet these challenges, companies need
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063329 to be agile and manage their entire value chain sensitively [2]. Various innovations can
be made to realize agile management. In addition, companies need physical and virtual
Academic Editors: Tsu-Ming Yeh,
structures to enable collaboration and rapid adaptation throughout the entire lifecycle, from
Hsin-Hung Wu, Yuh-Wen Chen and
Fan-Yun Pai
innovation to production and distribution [3]. Meeting these needs is essential for value
chains to be effective. In addition, companies’ futures are changing with the development of
Received: 8 February 2022 digital environments, where value chains are more influenced by each other and processes
Accepted: 7 March 2022 are becoming smarter [4,5]. In order to keep up with this change, companies aim to reduce
Published: 11 March 2022 unnecessary costs, increase business performance and quality, and shorten cycle times.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral With the advancement in technology, the systems and processes used to create value
with regard to jurisdictional claims in are also developing. In order to increase value production, development processes and
published maps and institutional affil- technologies need to adapt to the new industrial revolution (Industry 4.0). Industry 4.0,
iations. known as the fourth industrial revolution, has emerged with the digitalization of the
manufacturing industry [6]. Industry 4.0 is the digitization of all physical assets to create
an infrastructure and the stakeholders that make up the e-value chain [7]. With Industry
4.0, which leads the digitalization era, production systems, processes, machines, and
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. environments are all digitized [8–10].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. In order to achieve digitalization, high technologies must be used. High technologies
This article is an open access article
have an impact in every sector. However, the sustainability and continuity of these tech-
distributed under the terms and
nologies are also important, and in this context, it is necessary to ensure the sustainability
conditions of the Creative Commons
of Industry 4.0. Iyer [11] has researched developments in sustainable production processes
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
worldwide. By perfoming a study in India, he examined how developing economies
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
should transition to Industry 4.0. Environmental sustainability is becoming an essential
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3329. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063329 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3329 2 of 20
competitive factor among manufacturing companies due to economic markets and interna-
tional regulatory pressures. In recent years, the increase in awareness of environmental
issues by consumers has resulted in companies offering products that are environmentally
monitored and certified. Papetti et al. [12] states that by sharing data between components,
a structure can be created that can effectively model complex supply chains and measure
the environmental sustainability of items.
Industry 4.0 is a concept that has been studied frequently in recent years. There
are many applications and classification studies compiled in the literature. Öztemel and
Gürsev [13] carried out a classification study to provide an applied Industry 4.0 library to
academics and to those who apply these technologies in the industry. In order to ensure
the reliability of the review process, 619 studies related to Industry 4.0 were analyzed. In
addition to classification, the researchers also presented a roadmap for those who want to
achieve digitalization in production. Muhuri et al. [14] conducted bibliometric analyses
on the latest developments in Industry 4.0 and examined how often Industry 4.0 was
studied. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases, which are widely used in bibliometric
analysis, were preferred. As a result of the analysis, it was found that the most productive
countries in Industry 4.0 are Germany and China, and the most frequently used keywords
are: cyber–physical systems, Internet of Things, smart production, and simulation. Cobo
et al. [15] examined the working areas of Industry 4.0. Cyber–physical methods, cloud
computing techniques, innovative technologies, and supply chain comparisons were made.
Researchers examined 333 studies on Industry 4.0 in the Web of Science with SciMAT soft-
ware between 2013 and 2017, arguing that cyber–physical methods and cloud computing
are the most preferred techniques. Culot et al. [16] analyzed the definitions of Industry 4.0
keywords in the literature. Classification was made by determining the elements for each
definition. In the study of Mariani and Borghi [17], a bibliometric analysis of the potential
development of Industry 4.0 in service sectors was carried out. Li et al. [18] examined the
relationship between the existing literature on data, information, and knowledge dissem-
ination in the manufacturing industry and Industry 4.0 technologies. This relationship
was separated into groups and examined as *additive manufacturing, *cloud production,
*information transfer, *information management, and *information sharing. Echchakoul
and Barka [19] conducted a literature review on the effects of Industry 4.0 on the plastics
industry. In the study, the Bibliometrix R tool and VOSviewer software were analyzed, and
“Internet of Things” (IoT) was found to be the most used keyword. It was also discovered
that Industry 4.0 could also be analyzed by dividing it into clusters.
This study conducted a literature search on the definitions, application areas, advan-
tages, and difficulties of Industry 4.0 and its technologies. In the first and second parts of
the study, literature research on Industry 4.0 is included. In addition, how Industry 4.0
technologies are used on a sectoral basis is investigated. In the third part of the study, the
content and scope of quality are explained. The traceability/controllability/sustainability
of all the processes in the enterprise, the technology used, and the quality of the workforce
employed are then examined within the scope of Industry 4.0 and the quality relationship.
The flow of the study is shown in Figure 1.
In the fourth part of the study, quality and Industry 4.0 technologies (Internet of Things,
cloud, artificial intelligence, big data, 3D printer, cyber-physical systems, augmented reality)
are examined with the help of SciMAT and VOSviewer programs, and a classification study
is carried out. The classification consists of four stages. In the first stage, 958 studies
regarding quality and Industry 4.0 technologies were examined. In the second stage,
quality was divided into four main titles (quality costs, quality control, quality performance,
quality management), and the relationship of each subject with Industry 4.0 technologies
was examined separately. The classification structure is shown in Table 1. In the second
stage, a total of 226 articles were examined. In the third stage, 797 studies, in which each
of the criteria of traceability, controllability, and sustainability in the quality assessment
were used together with Industry 4.0 technologies, were examined. Finally, at the last stage
of classification, how the relationship between process, technology, human, economy, and
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21
Industry 4.0 technologies determines quality in Industry 4.0 was examined. At this stage,
6954 articles were scanned.
Figure 1. Flow-chart of the study.

Figure 1. Flow-chart of the study.
Table theIndustry
In 1. fourth4.0 studies.
part of the study, quality and Industry 4.0 technologies (Internet of
Things, cloud, artificial intelligence, big data, 3D printer, cyber-physical systems, aug-
Study Work
mented reality) are examined with the help of SciMAT and VOSviewer programs, and a
[20] classification study Revolutionary
is carried out. development in industry,
The classification literature
consists of study
four stages. In the first
[21] Investigating which key technologies are influential in
stage, 958 studies regarding quality and Industry 4.0 technologies were examined.Industry 4.0 In the
[22] Analysis of similarities and differences in Industry 4.0 technologies
[23]
second stage, quality was divided into four main titles (quality
Framework proposal for Industry 4.0
costs, quality control, qual-
[24] ity performance, quality management), and the relationship of each
Developing an Industry 4.0 model for machine tool efficiency subject with Industry
[25] 4.0 technologies was examined
Industry separately.
4.0 application The classification
guide: model structure
for manufacturing is shown in Table
companies
[26] 1. In the second stage, a total of 226 articles
Roadmap were examined.
for the transition to IndustryIn 4.0
the third stage, 797 studies,
[27] in which each of the criteria Smart factory transformation
of traceability, model for
controllability, andSMEs
sustainability in the quality
[28] assessment were used together with Industry 4.0 technologies,4.0
What to do in the transition to Industry were examined. Finally, at
[29] Gradual transition plan to Industry 4.0
[30]
the last stage Simulation
of classification, how the relationship between process, technology, human,
study on the importance of the human factor in Industry 4.0
[31] economy, and Industry The role of Industry 4.0 technologies in data management4.0 was examined.
4.0 technologies determines quality in Industry
[32] At this stage, 6954 Key aspectswere
articles scanned.
of Industry 4.0 and risks during its implementation
[33] Investigating what skills and expertise are required for Industry 4.0
[34] Application of Industry 4.0 in SMEs
[35] Investigation of the effects of Industry 4.0 on SMEs
[36] Model for the integration of lean manufacturing and Industry 4.0 to SMEs
[37] Key benefits of Industry 4.0 adoption in SMEs examined
[38] Comparison of Industry 4.0 applications in SMEs and large enterprises
Table 1. Cont.
Study Work
[39] Studying energy trends, electric vehicles, and the use of Industry 4.0 technologies in the EU
[40] The effects of Industry 4.0 technologies on sustainable energy
[41] Using blockchain to ensure sustainability
[42] Agile structuring and integration of Industry 4.0 in the automotive industry
[43] Use of blockchain in the automotive industry
[44] The role of Industry 4.0 in the transformation and development of products
[45] The impact of additive manufacturing on the development of smart factories
Claimed that with Industry 4.0, automation, integration of lines, and management of production
[46]
systems would be more effective
[47] Analysis of the performance of smart factories and its relationship with Industry 4.0
[48] Concrete steps to be taken in Industry 4.0 for smart factories
[49] The effectiveness of Industry 4.0 technologies in a smart factory environment
Improving the development processes of products with the smart virtual product development
[50]
system
[51] Applicability of Industry 4.0 for the security and protection sector
[52] Digital transformation of supply chain and marketing processes
[53] Use of Industry 4.0 in technology transfer in the supply chain
[54] Smart product assessments for product quality and sectoral growth
[55] Energy management with cloud-based web application
[56] Managing data in the health sector with Industry 4.0 technologies
[57] Using Industry 4.0 to reduce bicycle accidents
[58] Production scheduling with Industry 4.0
[59] Using Industry 4.0 to predict bottlenecks
[60] Using process mining as one of the stages of Industry 4.0
[61] Digitization of existing manuals
In this study, a classification study was conducted by considering Industry 4.0 in terms
of quality. There are many classification studies related to Industry 4.0 in the literature, but
these studies are mostly classified in terms of technology and method. In addition, there
are also classification studies carried out on a sectoral basis. However, there is no study in
the literature that classifies quality, integrating it into Industry 4.0, and classifying the two
together, as we have done in this study. In this sense, the study is original.
2. Literature Review
Industry 4.0, which also means digital transformation, is a concept that represents
increasing capacity with technology, data exchange, and cyber systems. It plays a vital role
in creating smart factory systems that aim to automate and remotely monitor all physical
systems [62]. Many modern automation systems are the most important distinguishing
elements of Industry 4.0 and include data exchange and production technology [63,64].
2.1. Smart Technologies in Industry 4.0

Industry 4.0 refers to the organization of production processes based on technolo-
gies and devices that communicate autonomously with each other throughout the value
chain [65]. It creates production ecosystems driven by intelligent systems with autonomous
features, such as self-configuration, self-monitoring, and self-development [66]. From the
procurement process to the production process, applications are made with Industry 4.0
technologies in many smart factories, with more efficient work at maximum capacity being
supported. Along with technological development, the way the factories work has also
changed. With developing technologies, smart factories have begun to be used. The leading
Industry 4.0 technologies are smart production, smart product, and smart supply [62,67].
In smart factories, processes at any stage of production can be renewed and improved
using automation [68], work [69], and control [70]. Smart factories are used to provide an
integrated data exchange between the physical world and the virtual world [71].
Bibby and Dehe [7] aimed to measure the application level of Industry 4.0 technologies
in three dimensions in the evaluation model they developed. These dimensions were:
*factory of the future, *people and culture, and *with strategy. Using Industry 4.0 applica-
tions, there could be seven technologies in future factories. These are: *Internet of Things
and cyber–physical systems, *big data, *cloud computing, *blockchain, *autonomous sys-
tems and robots, *additive manufacturing (3D printers), and *augmented reality [62,72,73].
Simulation and some system integration tools also support the implementation of Indus-
try 4.0 [74]. Connecting tangible assets to the internet makes it possible to access data
remotely and to control objects. Synergetic systems such as the Internet of Things are
needed to consolidate existing data on the internet [75]. With the increasing use of 4G-LTE
(fourth generation long-term evolution) wireless internet access and wi-fi technologies, it
has become essential to reach communication networks at any time [76]. With the spread
of the internet, new paradigms have emerged, with one of the most prominent being the
Internet of Things technology [77]. The term Internet of Things has become widespread
and can be defined as an intelligent network structure in which objects communicate us-
ing techniques without manual data entry [76,78–80]. The Internet of Things means that
addressable objects communicate with a specific protocol [81]. Smart devices used for the
internet can identify themselves, establish networks, and transfer the collected information
to public cloud services that can store and analyze it [82].
2.2. Big Data in Industry 4.0

Determining a data-based strategy is important for businesses to survive and gain
a competitive advantage [83]. Big data technology ensures that many and various data
are used effectively. Big data is a concept that defines and analyzes very different and
large volumes of data that current database technologies fail to analyze [84]. The usage
area for big data is quite wide; for example, it can be employed in national security [85],
business and economic activities [86], entertainment, manufacturing [87], education [88],
health [89], and transport and energy sectors [90]. Big data is a term used to describe
datasets that are beyond the storage, management, and processing capacity of programs.
Big data performs various operations, such as combining multiple unrelated datasets,
processing large amounts of unstructured data, and collecting confidential information in a
limited time [91].
2.3. Cloud Computing in Industry 4.0

The analysis of large volumes of data is essential, as is the storage and follow-up of
the areas where it is used. For this reason, it is necessary to make use of technologies
to carry out this follow-up. Information processing technology provides convenience in
tracking when and by whom data is stored, along with instant intervention [92]. Cloud
computing technologies are used in education to monitor individuals’ data/instant data and
to control the education processes received [93]. Cloud computing also reduces information
technology costs for individual users, small businesses, and office workers [94]. Cloud
computing is a network model that usually includes certain services and offers them to
the user with flexible configurability. Three essential services are offered in this network
model: software, platform, and infrastructure services. A software service is a service that
users benefit from by accessing applications from any platform connected to the internet
without any installation [95]. A platform service offers its users the opportunity to develop,
test, and distribute their software and applications online, and control and manage only
the peripherals required to host this software [96]. An infrastructure service accesses the
processor, storage, network resources, and other host components it needs, installing any
operating system on them, and developing and running applications [97].
2.4. Blockchain in Industry 4.0

With developments in technology, it is no longer necessary to keep data in central
systems. High-speed and secure communication can be established by duplicating the
desired data set and sharing this data with a limited number of people [98]. In an envi-
ronment with more than one user, the data added to the system must have a standard.
Blockchain technology is supported to update, protect, and share data with the desired
person/department in the digital world [99]. Blockchain can be defined as a shared, im-
mutable ledger that facilitates the recording of transactions and tracking assets in a business
network. An asset can be tangible (house, car, cash, land) or intangible (intellectual property,
patents, copyrights, branding), and almost anything of value can be traced and traded on a
blockchain network, reducing the risks and costs for everyone involved [100]. A blockchain
consists of a data block that is produced based on the theory of cryptography [101,102].
The blocks are recorded in a distributed ledger according to the consensus rules agreed to
by the network partners [103]. In addition, the system offers the opportunity for trading
between individuals without the need for a trusted third party. All individuals can view
the entire transaction history. The completeness of the transaction history also ensures
the validity of each virtual transaction, and all virtual transactions can be traced from the
moment they are created.
Blockchain also prevents the modification of existing records; thus, the need for man-
agement is reduced [104]. Blockchain technology can be used internally or in transactions
with customers, suppliers, shareholders, or the government. It is used in e-commerce,
international payments, lending, and microfinance [105]. Blockchain applications can be
found in many areas; for example, in the supply chain process in production [106], in the
follow-up of patients by creating a digital identity in health services [107] and inpatient
intervention in emergencies [108], in the storage of student notes and the protection of
personal data in education [109], and between suppliers and businesses. It is used to
provide data communication [110], secure money transfers, and use bitcoin in finance [111].
2.5. Cyber-Physical Systems in Industry 4.0

Industry 4.0 applications often include cyber–physical systems, combining data ex-
change/processing in cyber–physical systems, information technologies, and electrical
devices [75,112]. With the development of technologies, information technologies and the
importance of cyber–physical systems are emerging. The development of cyber–physical
systems, together with technology, has affected the development of machines and increased
the role of machines in human life. Machines make people’s work easier in many industries;
for example: in autonomous systems and robots in the defense industry [113], assisting
people with disabilities in healthcare, surgical interventions [114] and assisting nurses
in inpatient care [115], in quality control to increase productivity in production [116], in
education (helping with laboratory work) [117], and in geodetic surveying and spatial
decision support work in the mining industry [118].
2.6. 3D Printers in Industry 4.0

Three-dimensional (3D) printing, one of the most fundamental Industry 4.0 technolo-
gies, is a technology that was developed due to the interest of entrepreneurial individuals,
rather than large-scale businesses. Three-dimensional printers enable the information
stored on computers to be transformed from virtual to natural objects [119]. This technology,
which enables 3D production, is also called additive manufacturing in the literature [120].
Additive manufacturing is a modern manufacturing technique in which the materials used
with 3D data are added layer by layer, and the production of geometric parts is carried
out swiftly [121]. It has application areas in many sectors; for example, Giannatsis and De-
doussis [122] investigated the benefits of additive manufacturing in preoperative planning
studies for patient-specific implants in the healthcare industry and examining the human
skeleton. In addition, 3D printers are frequently used to produce parts that are difficult
to produce for vehicles such as aircraft and ships [123], and prototype products in R&D
units [124].
2.7. Augmented Reality in Industry 4.0

Technology to increase image quality with graphics, sound systems, and animation is
frequently used in augmented reality technology, which switches between the real and virtual
world [125]. For example, augmented reality technology is used in astrology [126,127], in
simulator training for trains [128,129], and in the analysis of planetary interactions with each
other. Augmented reality has been suggested for use in the conversion of manuals [61] and
in a newly developed CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) training system in healthcare
to measure the effectiveness of training [130], reduce costs [131], and control situations that
employees may encounter in departments [10].
Studies on Industry 4.0 definitions, technologies, roadmaps for transition, applications
in different sectors, and integration with different management styles are examined and
summarized in Table 1.
3. Quality
Quality is the degree to which a service or product meets its characteristics or possible
needs. Quality means customer satisfaction [132]. Increasing quality is possible with
the participation of the employees involved in the process at all stages [133], including
the participation of senior management employees and all team members. The efforts
of employees to achieve this goal in line with a common goal increase the quality of the
business in every field [134]. With the industrial revolutions and changes in management
philosophies, quality is also diversifying. The development of quality has developed in
parallel with the industrial revolutions. In Industry 4.0, the quality criteria determined to
evaluate the quality of an enterprise are also considered in the revolutionary development
of quality. Each quality revolution is evaluated using traceability, controllability, and
sustainability quality criteria.
3.1. Quality Costs in Industry 4.0

The cost of quality arises from existing poor quality or measures taken to prevent
potential poor quality [135]. Quality cost is one of the critical criteria that reflects the quality
level of an enterprise [136,137]. Businesses should be able to predict their quality costs
and plan accordingly. All quality costs should be kept to a minimum to maximize the
impact of quality systems on earnings. Quality costs can be managed by measuring these
costs effectively [138]. Industry 4.0 technologies can facilitate the measurement of costs
more effectively; for example, it is possible to measure financial quality with the blockchain
method by calculating costs for suppliers [139].
3.2. Quality Control in Industry 4.0

Quality control can be defined as mastering quality by taking precautions against
situations that may reduce the quality efficiency of the process [140]. The primary pur-
pose of quality control is to ensure continuity at the economic level by developing and
implementing production plans that can meet customer expectations and the strategic
goals of enterprises [141,142]. Quality control is an indispensable part of the processes
in manufacturing companies. Proper quality control will reduce production costs and
increase customer satisfaction [143]. In the case of unexpected changes during production,
quality control ensures that the situation is detected and corrected immediately. Advanced
technologies can be used for effective quality control, and many Industry 4.0 technologies
can be used in the quality control of processes; for example, Alberts et al. [144] uses cloud
technology to control products in the supply chain.
3.3. Quality Performance in Industry 4.0

Quality is one of the essential strategic tools in businesses [145], and businesses are
aware that quality is the main factor in product and service development for sustainable
success [146]. Therefore, improving quality performance is essential in product and service
development. Some criteria are also taken into account in the measurement of quality
performance, such as product performance, product/service quality, on-time delivery,

product suitability, product standardization, total warranty cost, and suitability of product
design [147]. These criteria used in measuring quality performance are also very effective in
total quality management practices [148]. Performance measurement is also a measurement
of the effectiveness of quality. With the smart technologies that entered our lives with
Industry 4.0, quality performance is increasing. Smart factories, smart products, and the
Industry 4.0 technologies that are used positively affect quality performance; for example,
the quality of processes in departments can be measured using the Internet of Things [47].
3.4. Quality Management in Industry 4.0

Quality management is the act of controlling all the activities and tasks that must
be performed to maintain the desired level of excellence [149]. The effect of quality man-
agement becomes even more critical when strategies are applied in businesses, especially
when unexpected situations are encountered [150]. Quality management facilitates the
control of all processes and data used in businesses [151,152]. In order to better manage
quality, studies have been carried out using Industry 4.0 technologies; for example, IoT
technology [153] has been used for planning capacity in manufacturing, and big data [154]
has been used to manage the health records of healthcare workers.
The development of quality has occurred in parallel with the industrial revolutions.
The quality criteria determined to evaluate the quality of enterprises in Industry 4.0 were
also considered in the revolutionary development of quality. Each quality revolution has
been evaluated using traceability, controllability, and sustainability quality criteria. With
the development in technology, it is becoming increasingly important to integrate these
technologies into businesses and to reach a certain level of quality [155].
In this study, traceability, controllability, and sustainability criteria were used to
evaluate the level of quality met. In Industry 4.0, for each business function, quality was
evaluated according to each criterion. For example, while Industry 4.0 was being applied
in production activities, an evaluation was made regarding the traceability of quality, the
controllability of quality, and the sustainability of production. In Industry 4.0, Industry 4.0
technologies are used to ensure the traceability, controllability, and sustainability of quality.
If the quality of the activities in an enterprise are mentioned, the quality must be traceable,
controllable, and sustainable. Figure 2 shows the quality criteria.
Figure 2. Quality criteria.
3.5. Quality Criteria

3.5.1. Traceability of Quality
With the traceability of the quality improvement process, businesses will be able to
perceive any coordination problems [156]. These criteria monitor whether the process is
carried out using the correct method/at the right time/the correct cost, considering the
quality expected from the process. Assistance is received from Industry 4.0 technologies
in monitoring, and with this follow-up, it is possible to intervene at the right time. For
each business function, the quality of the processes can be monitored using Industry 4.0
technologies. Blockchain technology can be used to ensure the traceability of quality. With
blockchain technology, accessibility between authorities and designated stakeholders is
also determined, and confidentiality is ensured with information protocols. As blockchain
technology records all data, both businesses and stakeholders ensure the traceability of
products [102].
3.5.2. Controllability of Quality

With the quality traceability criteria in Industry 4.0, the tracking of processes has
become more accessible. However, it has become essential to audit and control these
processes, and make corrections if necessary [157]. The process should remain confidential,
and only relevant persons should access this information. The decisions to be taken in line
with this information, obtained as a result of the controls, should only be made by certain
individuals [158]. It is not enough to simply follow the processes. With controllability,
the efficiency of the monitored processes is controlled, and the possibility of intervention
is provided. In addition, it is necessary to check whether the process should continue
in the desired line and whether it progresses at the desired quality. Industry 4.0 tech-
nologies can be used for quality control, and it is essential to establish an information
protocol in controllability, as with traceability. Quality controllability can be achieved with
blockchain technology.
3.5.3. Sustainability of Quality

It is necessary to ensure the continuity of the quality improvement process. Quality
improvement processes must be at a certain level and should meet expectations. The
desired quality will be achieved by ensuring the continuity of assets in an enterprise [159].
The sustainability of the quality of processes in business functions is essential. Economic
growth planning must be done correctly [160]. While achieving sustainability, it is necessary
to ensure economic and environmental sustainability, the effective use of an environmental
management system, and innovations [161,162]. Sivas et al. [163] examined the studies in
which sustainable product development and quality management approaches were used
together. They identified four areas that showed quality management’s support of sustain-
able product development (*supporting sustainability with the integration of management
systems, *supporting the implementation of quality and environmental management sys-
tems, *sustainability, and *stakeholder management and customer orientation). Bastas
and Liyanage [164] described the critical themes for the sustainability of product qual-
ity: leadership, customer focus, supply chain integration, relationship management, and
evidence-based decision making. While operating business processes, this study focused
on adaptation to the economy, adaptation to the environment, adaptation/orientation to
technology, compliance/directing customer expectations, and not losing knowledge to pro-
vide environmental/social security. Industry 4.0 technologies were used while achieving
these goals.
In the third stage of the classification, which is the second main subject of this study,
the publications in which Industry 4.0 technologies and quality keywords are studied
together were searched.
In order to discuss quality in an Industry 4.0 enterprise, it is necessary to look at the
quality of the processes. Whether the operation of the processes is progressing in line with
the determined quality requirements should be monitored. The quality of the existing
technologies preferred also directly affects the quality of the enterprise; technology alone
is not enough. The quality of the employees will increase the quality in every unit of the
enterprise. As it is essential to increase the quality of an enterprise financially, it is also
essential to increase the quality of the economy.
3.6. Quality Components

The quality components are process, technology, human, and economy, as shown in
Figure 3.
enterprise. As it is essential to increase the quality of an enterprise financially, it is also
essential to increase the quality of the economy.
3.6. Quality Components

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3329
The quality components are process, technology, human, and economy, as shown in
10 of 20
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Quality components.
3.6.1. Quality of Process

A quality process can be measured if it is controlled, repeatable, reliable, and sta-
ble [165]. Increasing the quality of processes will positively affect the overall quality of
the units. However, to comment on the increase or decrease in the quality of a process,
the quality must be measurable. There are studies in the literature that include the mea-
surement [166], structuring [167], design [168], quality evolution [169,170], and service
quality [171] of the process. However, there is no study in the literature that measures the
quality of the process with Industry 4.0 technologies.
3.6.2. Quality of Technology

With each industrial revolution, technology development has accelerated. The use
of high technology directly affects product quality. With advanced technology, product
quality can respond to demands better and more quickly, thus increasing the quality. In
the literature, many studies involve the integration of Industry 4.0 technologies with the
technologies used in the production and management activities in enterprises (e.g., Internet
of Things technology [172] used in product development in R&D and the use of big data
in the processing of suppliers). With information on purchasing [173], cloud computing
technology has been used to keep personnel information records for human resources
departments [174], and cloud computing technology has been used for remote access
to production information in production [175]. However, no study has been found that
measures the traceability, controllability, and sustainability of the technology used with
Industry 4.0 technologies.
3.6.3. Quality of Human

To develop technologies to be used efficiently, it is necessary to employ individuals
who can adapt to these technologies. Although technology and machinery are widely
used in many sectors, qualified personnel are always necessary. In the literature, there
are many studies that examine integrating the characteristics of the personnel involved
in the enterprise processes and Industry 4.0 technologies. For example, cloud computing
technology has been employed for keeping information regarding personnel employed
in R&D [174], big data [176] has been used for product records in purchasing, cloud
computing [177] has been utilized for accessing personnel information in human resources,
and big data [178] has been applied for use with product records in production. The
quality of Industry 4.0 technology processes can be improved by measuring the traceability,
controllability, and sustainability of the employed personnel.
3.6.4. Quality of Economy

It is possible to measure how strong a firm can be using various cost analyses. In-
creasing the technology and workforce used in all corporate processes is vital to obtaining
the appropriate quality while producing products or services. However, this increase
has an economic cost for the business. For this reason, while the quality of the processes
increases, “economy” is seen as a constraint. The quality of an economy can be measured
using Industry 4.0 technologies for the traceability, controllability, and sustainability of the
economy.
In Industry 4.0, criteria such as process, economy, technology, and people can be
used to measure quality in business activities. For this reason, in the fourth stage of the
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEERstudy,
classification REVIEW Industry 4.0 technologies and the publications in which these quality 12 of
keywords are studied together will be examined.
4. Classification
4. Classification
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW In the classification
In thepart of the study,
classification part the classification
of the made
of 21 with Industry 4.0 and
study, the 12classification made with Industry 4.0 an
quality studies quality
was carried outwas
studies in four stages.
carried out inThe
fourkeywords
stages. Theused in the classification
keywords are
used in the classification a
shown in Figureshown
4. in Figure 4.
4. Classification
In the classification part of the study, the classification made with Industry 4.0 and
quality studies was carried out in four stages. The keywords used in the classification are
shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Keywords.
Figure 4. Keywords.
In the first stageInofthe

Figure 4. Keywords. classification, theclassification,
first stage of Industry 4.0 technologies
the Industry (Internet of Things
4.0 technologies (IoT),
(Internet of Thin
cloud computing (C),cloud
(IoT), artificial intelligence
computing (AI), bigintelligence
(C), artificial data (BD), and (AI),3D
bigprinter (3D))and
data (BD), used
3Din
printer (3D
In quality
the first stage of classification,
studies wereinexamined.the Industry
In the4.0 technologies
second stage(Internet of Things4.0 and quality research
of Industry
(IoT), cloud computing (C),used artificial quality studies
intelligence (AI), bigwere
dataexamined.
(BD), and 3DIn the second
printer (3D)) stage of Industry 4.0 and qual
classification, the concept
research of quality
classification, was
the detailed
concept under
of
used in quality studies were examined. In the second stage of Industry 4.0 and quality
four
quality main
was headings
detailed (quality
under fourcosts,
main headin
researchquality control,
classification, quality
the(quality
concept of performance,
costs, quality
quality and quality
control,
was detailed quality
under management).
four performance,
main headingsand quality management).
(quality costs,In the control,
quality third stage
quality
In the of classification,
performance,
third stageand the studies
quality management).
of classification, instudies
the which in Industry 4.0 technologies
which Industry 4.0 technologies we
In the
werethird stageand
used of classification,
and the
the quality
used studies
keywords
the qualityin which Industry (traceability,
(traceability,
keywords 4.0controllability,
technologiescontrollability,
wereand sustainability) were
and sustainability) we
used and the quality keywords (traceability, controllability, and sustainability) were
examined. Finally, in the fourth
examined. Finally, stage
in theoffourth
classification,
stage of studies in which
classification, studiesprocess,
in economy,
which process, econom
examined. Finally, in the fourth stage of classification, studies in which process, economy,
technology,
technology, and humanand human
technology,
criteria criteria
were used and were
human
together used
criteria
with together
Industry were withtogether
used Industry
4.0 technologies 4.0 Industry
were with technologies were
4.0 technologies we
examined. The flow-chart
examined. of
The the classification
flow-chart
examined. The flow-chart of the classification is given in Figure 5. of the is given in
classification Figure
is 5.
given in Figure 5.
Figure 5.Figure 5. Flow-chart

Flow-chart of
of classification. classification.
In conducting the classification study, studies in engineering, management, and pro-

duction from the last five years were examined in the databases of WoS, Taylor and Fran-
cis, Science Direct, EBSCOhost,
Figureand5. Google Scholar.
Flow-chart In addition, the studies were exam-
of classification.
ined using the VOSviever and SciMAT programs. The classification details are shown in
In conducting the classification study, studies in engineering, management, and pro-

duction from the last five years were examined in the databases of WoS, Taylor and Francis,
Science Direct, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar. In addition, the studies were examined
using the VOSviever and SciMAT programs. The classification details are shown in Figure 6
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER (P
REVIEW 13 the
represents the number of publications on the research, and T is the number of times of 21
relevant keyword is repeated in the publications).
Figure6.6.Relationship
Figure Relationshipbetween
betweenIndustry
Industry4.0
4.0and
andquality.
quality.
InInthe
theclassification,
classification,the
theInternet
InternetofofThings
Things(IoT),
(IoT),cloud
cloudcomputing
computingtechnology
technology(C),
(C),
artificial
artificial intelligence (AI), big data (BD), and 3D printer (3DP) were the preferredIndustry
intelligence (AI), big data (BD), and 3D printer (3DP) were the preferred Industry
4.0
4.0(I4.0)
(I4.0)technologies. Thequality
technologies. The qualityclassification
classificationincluded
included quality
quality cost,
cost, quality
quality control,
control, per-
performance, and management. As seen in Figure 5, the most repeated subject in the classi-
formance, and management. As seen in Figure 5, the most repeated subject in the classifi-
fication for joint publications of quality and Industry 4.0 technologies, which was the first
cation for joint publications of quality and Industry 4.0 technologies, which was the first
stage of classification, was the Internet of Things technology and quality joint studies, with
stage of classification, was the Internet of Things technology and quality joint studies, with
842 repetitions in 139 publications. On the other hand, it can be seen that cloud computing
technology and quality were the most studied subjects with 347 publications. Therefore,
the second stage of classification was for publications where Industry 4.0 and quality cost,
quality control, quality performance, and quality management were used jointly.
842 repetitions in 139 publications. On the other hand, it can be seen that cloud computing
technology and quality were the most studied subjects with 347 publications. Therefore,
the second stage of classification was for publications where Industry 4.0 and quality cost,
quality control, quality performance, and quality management were used jointly.
5. Discussion
When examining the literature, many studies on Industry 4.0 can be found. The focus
of these studies is on existing technologies and the sectors where these technologies can
be applied. Although there are some publications related to Industry 4.0 manufacturing
technology that indirectly address quality, there are only a few publications that focus solely
on quality or that conduct a classification study to increase quality in general in Industry
4.0, such as [179,180]. In this sense, this study is original. In this study, the classification of
quality is discussed in terms of Industry 4.0. The results can be discussed as follows:
(1) Regarding quality costs, while the term Industry 4.0 had 34 repetitions in 8 publica-
tions, it was seen that cloud computing technology was studied in a maximum of
6 publications.
(2) With regard to quality control, while the term Industry 4.0 was repeated 48 times in
27 publications, it was found that cloud computing technology works were carried
out in a maximum of 18 publications.
(3) Concerning quality performance, while the term Industry 4.0 was repeated 27 times in
14 publications, cloud computing technology was studied in a maximum of 6 publications.
(4) With reference to quality management, while the term Industry 4.0 was repeated 45 times in
34 publications, it was seen that big data technology was studied in 22 publications at most.
In this study’s third stage of classification, traceability/sustainability/controllability criteria
and publications in which Industry 4.0 technologies were used jointly were examined.
(5) As a result of the examination, with regard to traceability, the term Industry 4.0 was
found to be repeated 183 times in 94 publications, with the most used technology
being the Internet of Things in 26 publications.
(6) As for controllability, while the term Industry 4.0 was repeated 28 times in 13 publica-
tions, the most used technology was 3D printing technology with 6 publications.
(7) On the sustainability of quality, while the term Industry 4.0 was repeated 517 times in
466 publications, big data technology was the most studied technology with 59 publica-
tions. In the final stage of classification, the publications in which process, technology,
people and economy, and Industry 4.0 technologies were used jointly were examined.
(8) Regarding the quality of the process, while the term Industry 4.0 was repeated
454 times in 162 publications, the most studied technology was cloud computing
technology with 1036 publications.
(9) Concerning technology quality, the term Industry 4.0 was repeated 400 times in
194 publications, and big data technology was studied in 659 publications.
(10) With regard to human component, the term Industry 4.0 was repeated 181 times in
60 publications, with artificial intelligence technology ranking first as the most studied
technology with 300 publications.
In the last component, economy quality, the term Industry 4.0 was repeated 672 times
in 61 publications, and the most studied technology was big data technology with 54 publi-
cations.
6. Conclusions
Process management has an important place in the philosophy of total quality manage-
ment. Process management is a discipline that forms the basis of, and manages, processes
to improve the performance of businesses. As Industry 4.0 applications are increasingly
being used in the business world, it is impossible for quality management and process
management to stay removed from digitalization. The concept of quality in Industry 4.0
aims to digitize all business processes in terms of quality to increase the use of Industry 4.0
technologies. The quality of the technology used in businesses and the quality of the work-
force, especially the processes, are monitored in quality management, which are created
using Industry 4.0 technologies to ensure the traceability/control/sustainability of the
quality of all the processes that businesses need in order to continue their activities. This
follow-up/increase is aimed at improving the economic quality.
First, keywords were determined for this classification study, which was the second
main subject of the study. Studies in which Industry 4.0 technologies (Internet of Things
(IoT), cloud computing technology (C), artificial intelligence (AI), big data (BD), and 3D
printing (works using 3DP)) and the word “quality” were used together were examined. In
the second stage, studies in which Industry 4.0 technologies were determined and quality
costs, quality control, quality performance, and quality management worked together were
investigated. In the third stage of this study, traceability/controllability/sustainability and
Industry 4.0 technologies were examined together. In the last stage of the classification,
the quality of the process, technology, people, and economy were examined together with
Industry 4.0 technologies. It covers the classification of quality in Industry 4.0 and the
literature review of the relationship between quality and Industry 4.0 technologies.
As can be observed from this classification study, there are publications in the literature
where Industry 4.0 and quality issues have been studied together. However, as can be seen
when examining quality in Industry 4.0, no study has used Industry 4.0 technologies to
ensure quality monitoring/control/sustainability in the processes of all institutions, in
all technologies used, and in all workforces employed. There are only a few studies in
the literature that have explored the importance of quality in Industry 4.0. Therefore, this
classification study reveals the need for studies that emphasize quality in Industry 4.0.
7. Future Research
In this research, a classification study was conducted by examining the relationship
between Industry 4.0 and quality. In future studies, the scope of the study could be
expanded by adding new criteria, such as real-time data and the circular economy. Again,
as a result of the subtitles created for classification in this study, a new quality model could
be created and integrated into Industry 4.0.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.B. and T.K.P.; methodology, E.B. and T.K.P.; software,
E.B. and T.K.P.; validation, E.B. and T.K.P.; formal analysis, E.B. and T.K.P.; investigation, E.B. and
T.K.P.; resources, E.B. and T.K.P.; data curation, E.B. and T.K.P.; writing—original draft preparation,
E.B. and T.K.P.; writing—review and editing, E.B. and T.K.P.; visualization, E.B. and T.K.P.; supervi-
sion, E.B. and T.K.P.; project administration, E.B. and T.K.P. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Li, G.; Hou, Y.; Wu, A. Fourth industrial revolution: Technological drivers, impacts and coping methods. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2017,
27, 626–637. [CrossRef]
2. Schumacher, A.; Erol, S.; Sihn, W. A maturity model for assessing industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing
enterprises. Procedia CIRP 2016, 52, 161–166. [CrossRef]
3. Gligor, D.M.; Holcomb, M.C. Antecedents and consequences of supply chain agility: Establishing the link to firm performance. J.
Bus. Logist. 2012, 33, 295–308. [CrossRef]
4. Fatorachian, H.; Kazemi, H. A critical investigation of industry 4.0 in manufacturing: Theoretical operationalisation framework.
Prod. Plan. Control. 2018, 29, 633–644. [CrossRef]
5. Cottyn, J.; Landeghem, H.V.; Stockman, K.; Derammelaere, S. A method to align a manufacturing execution system with lean
objectives. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2011, 49, 4397–4413. [CrossRef]
6. Weking, J.; Stöcker, M.; Kowalkiewicz, M.; Böhm, M.; Krcmar, H. Archetypes for industry 4.0 business model innovations. In
Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Americans Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 16–18 August 2018.
7. Bibby, L.; Dehe, B. Defining and assessing industry 4.0 maturity levels—Case of the defence sector. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29,
1030–1043. [CrossRef]
8. Alcacer, V.; Cruz-Machado, V. Scanning the industry 4.0: A literature review on Technologies for manufacturing systems. Eng. Sci.
Technol. Int. J. 2019, 22, 899–919. [CrossRef]
9. Ku, C.; Chien, C.; Ma, K. Digital transformation to empower smart production for industry 3.5 and an empirical study for textile
dyeing. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 142, 106297. [CrossRef]
10. Longo, F.; Nicoletti, L.; Padovano, A. Smart operators in industry 4.0: A human-centered approach to enhance operators’
capabilities and competencies within the new smart factory context. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017, 113, 144–159. [CrossRef]
11. Iyer, A. Moving from industry 2.0 to industry 4.0: A case study from India on leapfrogging in smart manufacturing. Procedia
Manuf. 2018, 21, 663–670. [CrossRef]
12. Papetti, A.; Marconi, M.; Rossi, M.; Germani, M. Web-based platform for eco-sustainable supply chain management. Sustain.
Prod. Consum. 2019, 17, 215–228. [CrossRef]
13. Öztemel, E.; Gursev, S. Literature review of industry 4.0 and related Technologies. J. Intell. Manuf. 2018, 31, 127–182. [CrossRef]
14. Muhuri, P.K.; Shukla, A.K.; Abraham, A. Industry 4.0: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2019,
78, 218–235. [CrossRef]
15. Cobo, M.J.; Jürgens, B.; Herrero-Solana, V.; Martinez, M.A.; Herrera-Viedma, E. Industry 4.0: A perspective based on bibliometric
analysis. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 139, 364–371. [CrossRef]
16. Culot, G.; Nassimbeni, G.; Orzes, G.; Sartor, M. Behind the definition of industry 4.0: Analysis and open questions. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 2020, 226, 107617. [CrossRef]
17. Mariani, M.; Borghi, M. Industry 4.0: A bibliometric review of its managerial intellectual structure and potantial evolution in the
service industries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 149, 119752. [CrossRef]
18. Li, D.; Landström, A.; Fast-Berglund, A.; Almström, P. Human-centred dissemination of data, information and knowledge in
industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP 2019, 84, 380–386. [CrossRef]
19. Echchakoul, S.; Barka, N. Industry 4.0 and its impact in plastic industry: A literature review. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2020, 20, 100172.
20. Wang, J.; Wan, D.; Zhang, D.; Li, D.; Zhang, C. Towards smart factory for industry 4.0. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 39, 1415–1420.
21. Santos, C.; Mehrsai, A.; Barros, A.C.; Araujo, M.; Ares, E. Towards industry 4.0: An overview of European strategic roadmaps.
Procedia Manuf. 2017, 13, 972–979. [CrossRef]
22. Zhong, R.Y.; Xu, X.; Klotz, E.; Newman, S.T. Intelligent manufacturing in the context of industry 4.0: A review. Engineering 2017,
3, 616–630. [CrossRef]
23. Luque, A.; Peralta, M.E.; Heras, A.D.L.; Cordoba, A. State of the industry 4.0 in the Andalusian food sector. Procedia Manuf. 2017,
13, 1199–1205. [CrossRef]
24. Rafael, L.D.; Jaione, G.E.; Christina, L.; Ibon, S.L. An industry 4.0 maturity model for machine tool companies. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 2020, 159, 120203. [CrossRef]
25. Hamzeh, R.; Zhong, R.; Xu, X.W. A survey study on industry 4.0 for New Zealand manufacturing. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 26, 49–57.
[CrossRef]
26. Backhaus, S.K.H.B.; Nadarajah, D. Investigating the relationship between industry 4.0. and productivity: A conceptual framework
for Malaysian manufacturing firms. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 161, 696–706. [CrossRef]
27. Faller, C.; Feldmüller, D. Industry 4.0 learning factory for regional SMEs. Procedia CIRP 2015, 32, 88–91. [CrossRef]
28. Benesova, A.; Tupa, J. Requirements for education and qualification of people in industry 4.0. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 11, 2195–2202.
[CrossRef]
29. Sung, T.K. Industry 4.0: A Korea perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 132, 40–45. [CrossRef]
30. Angelepoulou, A.; Mykoniatis, K.; Boyapati, N.R. Industry 4.0: The use of simulation for human reliability assessment. Procedia
Manuf. 2020, 42, 296–301. [CrossRef]
31. Miragliotta, G.; Sianesi, A.; Convertini, E.; Distante, R. Data driven management in industry 4.0: Method to measure data
productivity. IFAC Pap. 2018, 51, 19–24. [CrossRef]
32. Tupa, J.; Simota, J.; Steiner, F. Aspects of risk management implementation for industry 4.0. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 11, 1223–1230.
[CrossRef]
33. Motyl, B.; Baronio, G. How will change the future engineers’ skills in the industry 4.0 framework? A questionnaire survey.
Procedia Manuf. 2017, 11, 1501–1509. [CrossRef]
34. Centea, D.; Singh, I.; Wanyama, T.; Magolon, M.; Boer, J.; Elbestawi, M. Using the SEPT learning factory for the implementation of
industry 4.0: Case of SMEs. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 45, 102–107. [CrossRef]
35. Villa, A.; Taurino, T. SME innovation and development in the context of industry 4.0. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 39, 1415–1420.
[CrossRef]
36. Kolla, S.; Minufekr, M.; Plapper, P. Deriving essential components of lean and industry 4.0 assessment model for manufacturing
SMEs. Procedia CIRP 2019, 81, 753–758. [CrossRef]
37. Masood, T.; Sonntag, P. Industry 4.0: Adoption challenges and benefits for SMEs. Comput. Ind. 2020, 121, 103261. [CrossRef]
38. Müller, J.M. Contributions of industry 4.0 to quality management—A SCOR perspective. IFAC Pap. Line 2019, 52, 1236–1241.
[CrossRef]
39. Zaimovic, T. Setting speed limit on industry 4.0—An Outlook of power mix and grid capacity challenge. Procedia Comput. Sci.
2019, 158, 107–115. [CrossRef]
40. Hidayatno, A.; Destyanto, A.R.; Hulu, C.A. Industry 4.0 technology implementation impact industrial sustainable energy in
Indonesia: A model conceptualization. Energy Proedia 2019, 156, 227–233. [CrossRef]
41. Meyer, T.; Kuhn, M.; Hartmann, E. Blockchain technology enabling the physical internet: A synergetic application framework.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 136, 5–17. [CrossRef]
42. Bader, S.; Barth, T.; Krohn, P.; Ruchser, R.; Storch, L.; Wagner, L.; Findeisen, S.; Pokorni, B.; Braun, A.; Ohlhausen, P.; et al. Agile
shopfloor organization design for industry 4.0 manufacturing. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 39, 756–764. [CrossRef]
43. Bai, C.; Dallasega, P.; Orzes, G.; Sarkis, J. Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: A sustainability perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
2020, 229, 107776. [CrossRef]
44. Ebrahimi, M.; Baboli, A.; Rother, E. The evolution of World class manufacturing toward industry 4.0: A case study in the
automative industry. IFAC Pap. 2019, 52, 188–194. [CrossRef]
45. Dilberoglu, U.M.; Gharehpapagh, B.; Yaman, U.; Dolen, M. The role of additive manufacturing in the era of industry 4.0. Procedia
Manuf. 2017, 11, 545–554. [CrossRef]
46. Taurino, T.; Villa, A. A method for applying industry 4.0 in small enterprises. IFAC Pap. 2019, 52, 439–444. [CrossRef]
47. Büchi, G.; Cugno, M.; Castagnoli, R. Smart factory performance and industry 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 150, 119790.
[CrossRef]
48. Karre, H.; Hammer, M.; Kleindienst, M.; Ramsauer, C. Transition towards an industry 4.0 state of the lean lab at Graz university
of technology. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 9, 206–213. [CrossRef]
49. Mehami, J.; Nawi, M.; Zhong, R.Y. Smart automated guided vehicles for manufacturing in the context of industry 4.0. Procedia
Manuf. 2018, 26, 1077–1086. [CrossRef]
50. Ahmed, M.B.; Sanin, C.; Szczerbicki, E. Smart virtual product development (SVPD) to enhance product manufacturing in industry
4.0. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 159, 2232–2239. [CrossRef]
51. Pereira, T.; Barreto, L.; Amaral, A. Network and information security challenges within industry 4.0 paradigm. Procedia Manuf.
2017, 13, 1253–1260. [CrossRef]
52. Ardito, L.; Petruzelli, A.M.; Panniello, U.; Garavelli, A.C. Mapping digital Technologies for supply chain management-marketing
integration. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2019, 25, 323–346. [CrossRef]
53. Silva, V.L.D.; Kovaleski, J.L.; Pagani, R.N. Technology transfer in the supply chain oriented to industry 4.0: A literature review.
Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2019, 31, 546–562. [CrossRef]
54. Zavadska, Z.; Zavadsky, J. Quality managers and their future technological expectations related to industry 4.0. Total Qual. Manag.
Bus. Excell. 2020, 31, 717–741. [CrossRef]
55. Javied, T.; Huprich, S.; Franke, J. Cloud based energy management system compatible with the industry 4.0 requirements.
IFAC-Pap. 2019, 52, 171–175. [CrossRef]
56. Shihundla, T.B.; Mpofu, K.; Adenurga, O.T. Integrating product-service systems into the manufacturing industry: Industry 4.0
perpectives. Procedia CIRP 2019, 83, 8–13. [CrossRef]
57. Perez, S.A.M.; Olvera, R.; Garcia, C.C.; Soler, A.F.I.; Flores De La, M. Internet of things and industry 4.0 applied in the delivery
system for the bicipuma bike-sharing sytem in UNAM-Mexico. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 42, 434–441. [CrossRef]
58. Vespoli, S.; Grassi, A.; Guizzi, G.; Santillo, L.S. Evaluating the advantages of an novel decentralised scheduling approach in the
industry 4.0 and cloud manufacturing era. IFAC-Pap. 2019, 52, 2170–2176. [CrossRef]
59. Lototsky, V.; Sabitov, R.; Smirnova, G.; Sirazetdinov, B.; Elizarova, N.; Sabitov, S. Model of the automated warehouse management
and forecasting system in the conditions of transition to industry 4.0. IFAC-Pap. 2019, 52, 78–82. [CrossRef]
60. Osman, C.C.; Ghiran, A.M. When industry 4.0 meets process mining. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 159, 2130–2136. [CrossRef]
61. Gattulo, M.; Scurati, G.W.; Fiorentino, M.; Uva, A.E.; Ferrise, F.; Bordegoni, M. Towards augmented reality manuals for industry
4.0: A methodology. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2019, 56, 276–286. [CrossRef]
62. Frank, A.G.; Dalenogare, L.S.; Ayala, N.F. Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 2019, 210, 15–26. [CrossRef]
63. Özsoylu, A.F. Endüstri 4.0. Çukurova Üniv. İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Derg. 2017, 21, 41–64.
64. Piccarozzi, M.; Aquilani, B.; Gatti, C. Industry 4.0 in management tudies: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2018, 10,
3821. [CrossRef]
65. Fox, B.; Subic, A. An industry 4.0 approach to the 3D printing of composite materials. Engineering 2019, 5, 621–623. [CrossRef]
66. Tao, F.; Qi, Q.; Wang, L.; Nee, A.Y.C. Digital twins and cyber-physical systems toward smart manufacturing and industry 4.0:
Correlation and comparison. Engineering 2019, 5, 653–661. [CrossRef]
67. Brettel, M.; Friederichsen, N.; Keller, M.; Rosenberg, M. How virtualization, decentralization and network building change the
manufacturing landscape: An industry 4.0 perspective. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol 2014, 8, 37–44.
68. Wang, Q.; Zhu, X.; Ni, Y.; Gu, L.; Zhu, H. Blockchain for the IoT and industrial IoT: A review. Internet Things 2020, 10, 100081.
[CrossRef]
69. Radziwon, A.; Bilberg, A.; Bogers, M.; Madsen, E.S. The smart factory: Exploring adaptive and flexible manufacturing solutions.
Procedia Eng. 2014, 69, 1184–1190. [CrossRef]
70. Wang, J.; Wan, D.; Zhang, D.; Li, D.; Zhang, C. Towards smart factory for industry 4.0: A self-organized multi-agent system with
big data-based feedback and coordination. Comput. Netw. 2016, 101, 158–168. [CrossRef]
71. Barreto, L.; Amaral, A.; Pereira, T. Industry 4.0 implications in logistics: An overview. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 13, 1245–1252.
[CrossRef]
72. Gabaçlı, N.; Uzunöz, M.I.V. sanayi devrimi: Endüstri 4.0 ve otomotiv sektörü. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress
on Political, Economic and Social Studies (ICPESS), Ankara, Turkey, 9–11 November 2017.
73. Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
74. Landriscina, F. Simulation and Learning a Model-Centered Approach; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
75. Kopetz, H. Internet of things. In Real-Time Systems; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 307–323.
76. Gubbi, J.; Buyya, R.; Marusic, S.; Palaniswami, M. Internet of things: A vision, architectural elements and future directions. Future
Gener. Comput. Syst. 2013, 29, 1645–1660. [CrossRef]
77. Lee, G.M.; Crespi, N.; Choi, J.K.; Boussard, M. Internet of things. In Evolution of Telecommunication Services; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 257–282.
78. Ulaş, S. Nesnelerin Interneti Ekosistemdeminde Makineler Arası Özerk Iletişim; Yüksek Lisans Tezi Gazi Üniversitesi: Ankara, Turkey,
2015.
79. Bao, Y.F. Analysis of the learning evaluation of distance education based on the internet of things. World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ.
2016, 14, 168–172.
80. Aktaş, F.; Çeken, C.; Erdemli, Y.E. Nesnelerin interneti teknolojisinin biyomedikal alanındaki uygulamaları. Düzce Üniv. Bilim Ve
Teknol. Derg. 2016, 4, 37–54.
81. Yang, G.; Xie, L.; Mantsalo, M.; Zhou, X.; Pang, Z.; Xu, L.; Kao-Walter, S.; Chen, Q.; Zheng, L. Industrial informatics. IEEE Trans.
2014, 10, 2180–2191.
82. Miorandi, D.; Sicari, S.; Pellegrini, F.D.; Chlamtac, I. Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges. J. Ad Hoc
Netw. 2012, 10, 1497–1516. [CrossRef]
83. Jagadish, H.V.; Gehrke, J.; Labrinidis, A.; Papakonstantinou, Y.; Patel, J.; Ramakrishnan, J.M.R.; Shahabi, C. Big data and its
technical challenges. Commun. ACM 2014, 57, 86–94. [CrossRef]
84. Gahi, Y.; Guennoun, M.; Mouftah, H.T. Big data analytics: Security and privacy challenges. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium
on Computers and Communication, Messina, Italy, 27–30 June 2016; pp. 952–957.
85. Chandra, S.; Ray, S.; Goswami, R.T. Big data security: Survey on frameworks and algorithms. In Proceedings of the IEEE 7th
International Advance Computing Conference (IACC), Hyderabad, India, 5–7 January 2017; pp. 48–54.
86. Diebold, W.F. Big data dynamic factor models for macroeconomic measurement and forecasting, advances in economics and
econometrics. In Eight World Congress of the Econometric Society; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 115–122.
87. Mauro, A.D.; Greco, M.; Grimaldi, M. A formal definition of big data based on its essential features. Libr. Rev. 2016, 65, 22–135.
[CrossRef]
88. Rubistein, I.S. Big data: The end of privacy or a new beginning? Int. Data Priv. 2013, 3, 74–86. [CrossRef]
89. Tang, J.J.; Karim, K.E. Big data in business analytics: Implications for the audit profession. CPA J. 2017, 87, 34–39.
90. Goes, P.B. Big data and IS research. MIS Q. 2014, 38, 3–8.
91. Erl, T.; Wajid, K.; Paul, B. Big Data Fundamentals, Concepts, Drivers & Techniques; Arcitura Education Inc.: North Vancouver, BC,
Canada, 2016.
92. Goodburn, M.A.; Hill, S. The cloud transforms business. Financ. Exec. 2010, 26, 34–39.
93. Fox, B. Cloud computing a game changer for EU economy. Kroes Saays. 2012. Available online: https://euobserver.com/news/
117695 (accessed on 7 February 2022).
94. Mladen, A.V. Cloud computing-issues, research and implementations. J. Comput. Inf. Technol. 2008, 6, 235–246.
95. Shao, Y.; Di, L.; Gong, J.; Bai, Y.; Zhao, P. GIS in the cloud: Implementing a web coverage service on amazon cloud computing
platform. In Electrical Engineering and Control, 98, Lectures Notes in Electrical Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2011; pp. 289–295.
96. Pandey, S. Cloud computing technology & GIS applications. In Proceedings of the 8th Asian Symposium on Geographic
Information Systems from Computer & Engineering View (ASGIS 2010), Chongqing, China, 22–24 April 2010.
97. Lu, X. An approach to service and cloud computing techniques in GIS. Geosci. Remote Sens. (IITA-GRS) 2010, 1, 492–495.
98. Kshetri, N. Blockcchain’s roles in strengthening cybersecurity and protecting privacy. Telecommun. Policy 2017, 41, 1027–1038.
[CrossRef]
99. Rao, A.R.; Clarke, D. Perspective on emerging directions in using IoT devices in blockchain applications. Internet Things 2019, 10,
100079. [CrossRef]
100. Gupta, R.A.; Chow, M.Y. Networked control system: Overview and research trends. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2010, 57, 2527–2535.
[CrossRef]
101. Nakamoto, S. Bitcoin: A Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash System; SSRN: Rochester, NY, USA, 2017.
102. Agrawal, T.K.; Kumar, V.; Pal, R.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y. Blockchain-based framework for supply chain traceability: A case example
of textile and clothing industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 154, 107130. [CrossRef]
103. Swan, M. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy; O’reilly Media Inc.: North Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2015.
104. Beck, R.; Czepluch, J.S.; Lollike, N.; Malone, S. Blockchain-the gateway to trust-free cryptographic transactions. Eur. Conf. Inf.
Syst. 2016, 153.
105. Risius, M.; Spohrer, K. A blockchain research framework. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 385–409. [CrossRef]
106. Ducas, E.; Wilner, A. The security and financial implications of blockchain technologies: Regulating emerging technologies in
Canada. Int. J. 2017, 72, 538–562. [CrossRef]
107. Kuo, T.T.; Kim, H.E.; Ohno-Machado, L. Blockchain distributed ledger Technologies for biomedical and healthcare applications. J.
Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2017, 24, 1211–1220. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
108. Tandon, A.; Dhir, A.; Islam, A.K.M.N.; Mantymaki, M. Blockchain in healthcare: A systematic literature review, synthesizing
framework and future research agenda. Comput. Ind. 2020, 122, 103290. [CrossRef]
109. Chen, G.; Xu, B.; Lu, M.; Chen, N. Exploring blockchain technology and its potential applications for education. Smart Learn.
Environ. 2018, 5, 1. [CrossRef]
110. Thoben, K.; Wiesner, S.; Wuest, T. Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing—A review of research issues and application examples.
Int. J. Autom. Technol. 2017, 11, 4–16. [CrossRef]
111. Pisa, M.; Juden, M. Blockchain and economic development: Hype vs. reality. Cent. Glob. Dev. 2017, 107, 5–7.
112. Baheti, R.; Gill, H. Cyber-physical systems. Impact Control Technol. 2011, 12, 161–166.
113. Cross, T. Human obsolescence, science and technology. In The Economist: The World in 2018; The Economist Newspaper Limited:
London, UK, 2018.
114. Shaywitz, S. A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. Overcoming Dyslexia 2005, 28, 575.
115. Huang, S.; Tanioka, T.; Locsin, R.; Paker, M.; Marsoy, O. Functions of a caring robot in nursing. In Proceedings of the Seventh
International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering, Tokushima, Japan, 27–29 November
2011.
116. Verl, A. Robotics & Industrie 4.0. In IFR-International Federation of Robotics; 2017; Available online: https://scholar.archive.
org/work/q26zts5rhjd5jhfbjzv6dhi62u/access/wayback/https://ifr.org/img/uploads/Presentation_Industry_i4.0_Rob_
Alexander_VERL_29_9_16.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2022).
117. Steele, M.J. Agent-Based Simulation of Unmanned Surface Vehicles: A Force in the Fleet; NPS: Monterrey, CA, USA, 2004.
118. Thrun, S.; Burgards, W.; Fox, D. A probabilistic approach to cncurrent mapping and localization for mobile robots. Mach. Learn.
Auton. Robot. 1998, 31, 1–25.
119. Barnatt, C. 3D printing: The Next Industrial Revolution. In ABD: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform; CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2013; p. 11120.
120. Kneissl, W. 3D printing 2014-2025: Technologies, markets, players. In ABD: ID Tech Ex; IDTechEX: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; p. 4.
121. Zhang, L.-C.; Han, M.; Huang, S. A improved interface between CAD and rapid prototyping systems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol
2003, 21, 15–19.
122. Giannatsis, J.; Dedoussis, V. Additive fabrication technologies applied to medicine and health care: A review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 2009, 40, 116–127. [CrossRef]
123. Olla, P. Opening Pandora’s 3D printed box. Technol. Soc. Mag. 2015, 34, 74–80. [CrossRef]
124. Bergsma, J.; Zalm, M.; Pruyn, J. 3D-printing and the maritime construction sector. In Proceedings of the Conference Paper: Hiper,
Cortona, Italy, 17–19 October 2016.
125. Azuma, R.T. A survey of augmented reality. Teleoperatorsand Virtual Environ. 1997, 6, 355–385. [CrossRef]
126. Chi, H.; Kang, S.; Wang, X. Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality applications in architecture, engineering and
construction. Comput. Sci. Autom. Constr. 2013, 33, 116–122. [CrossRef]
127. Sielhorst, T.; Obst, T.; Burgkart, R.; Riener, R.; Navab, N. An augmented reality delivery simülatör for medical training. Comput.
Sci. 2004.
128. Öztürk, V.; Arar, Ö.F.; Rende, F.Ş.; Öztemel, E.; Sezer, S. Validation of railway vehicle dynamic models in training simulators. Veh.
Syst. Dyn. 2016, 55, 41–71. [CrossRef]
129. Cole, C.; Spiryagin, M.; Wu, Q.; Sun, Y.Q. Modelling simulation and applications of longitudinal train dynamics. Veh. Syst. Dyn.
2017, 55, 1498–1571. [CrossRef]
130. Balian, S.; McGovern, S.; Abella, B.S.; Blewer, A.L.; Leary, M. Feasibility of an augmented reality cardiopulmonary resuscitation
training system for health care providers. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02205. [CrossRef]
131. Ginters, E.; Gutierrez, J.M. Low cost augmented reality and RFID application for logistics items visualization. Procedia Comput.
Sci. 2013, 26, 3–13. [CrossRef]
132. Budianto, A. Customer loyalty: Quality of service. J. Manag. Rev. 2019, 3, 299–305. [CrossRef]
133. Kauffman, R.; Dougles, Z. Quality Management Plus; The Continous Improvement of Education Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA,
1993.
134. Othman, I.; Ghani, S.N.M.; Choon, S.W. The total quality management (TQM) journey of Malaysian building contractors. Ain
Shams Eng. J. 2020, 11, 697–704. [CrossRef]
135. Juran, J.; Godfrey, A.B. Quality Handbook; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
136. Battini, D.; Faccio, M.; Persona, A.; Sgarbosa, F. Design of an integrated quality assurance strategy in production systems. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 2012, 50, 1682–1701. [CrossRef]
137. Castillo-Villar, K.K.; Smith, N.R.; Simonton, J.L. A model for supply chain design considering the cost of quality. Appl. Math.
Model. 2012, 36, 5920–5935. [CrossRef]
138. Moica, S.; Radulescu, E. Statistical controls have a significant influence on non-quality costs. Cases study in a company those
manufacturing aluminum castings components. Procedia Technol. 2014, 12, 489–493. [CrossRef]
139. Thakur, S.; Breslin, J.G. Scalable and secure product serialization for multi-party perishable good supply chains using blockchain.
Internet Things 2020, 11, 100253. [CrossRef]
140. Philips, B.P.; Gomez-Navarro, N.; Miller, E.A. Protein quality control in the endoplasmic reticulum. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2020, 65,
96–102. [CrossRef]
141. Scheimer, R.; Edwards, R.; Notes, A. Quality control and preprocessing of metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 863–864.
142. Zhang, Z.; Gui, D.; Sha, M.; Liu, J.; Wang, H. Raman chemical feature extraction for quality control of dairy products. J. Dairy Sci.
2019, 102, 68–76. [CrossRef]
143. Szajna, A.; Stryjski, R.; Wozniak, W.; Chamier-Gliszczynski, N.; Krolikowski, T. The production quality control process, enhanced
with augmented reality glasses and the new generation computing support system. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 176, 3618–3625.
[CrossRef]
144. Albers, A.; Gladysz, B.; Pinner, T.; Butenko, V.; Stürmlinger, T. Procedure for defining the system of objectives in the initial phase
of an industry 4.0 project focusing on intelligent quality control systems. Procedia CIRP 2016, 52, 262–267. [CrossRef]
145. Saab, N.; Helms, R.; Zoet, M. Predictive quality performance control in BPM: Proposing a framework for predicting quality
anomalies. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 138, 714–723. [CrossRef]
146. Boateng-Okrah, E.; Fening, F.A. TQM implementation: A case of a mining company in Ghana. Benchmarking Int. J. 2012, 19,
743–759. [CrossRef]
147. Bolatan, G.I.; Gozlu, S.; Alpkan, L.; Zaim, S. The impact of technology transfer performance on total quality management and
quality performance. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 235, 746–755. [CrossRef]
148. Zehir, C.; Ertosun, Ö.G.; Zehir, S.; Müceldilli, B. Total quality management practices’ effects quality performance and innovative
performance. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 41, 273–280. [CrossRef]
149. Bashan, A.; Kordova, S. Globalization, quality and systems thinking: Integrating global quality management and a systems view.
Heliyon 2021, 7, e06161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
150. McAdam, R.; Miller, K.; McSorley, C. Towards a contingency theory perspective of quality management in enabling strategic
alignment. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 207, 195–209. [CrossRef]
151. Somasundaram, M.; Mohamed Junaid, K.A.M.; Mangadu, S. Artificial intelligence (AI) enabled intelligence quality management
system(IQMS) for personalized learning path. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 172, 438–442. [CrossRef]
152. Badach, J.; Voordeckers, D.; Nyka, L.; Van Acker, M. A framework for air quality management zones—Useful GIS-based tool for
urban planning: Case studies in Antwerp and Gdansk. Build. Environ. 2020, 174, 106743. [CrossRef]
153. Müller, J.M.; Buliga, O.; Voigt, K.I. The role of absorptive capacity and innovation strategy in the design of industry 4.0 business
models—A comparison between SMEs and large enterprises. Eur. Manag. J. 2020, 39, 333–343. [CrossRef]
154. Badri, A.; Boudreau-Trudel, B.; Souissi, A.S. Occupational health and safety in the industry 4.0 era: A cause for major concern.
Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 403–411. [CrossRef]
155. Feigenbaum, A. Total Quality Control; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
156. Ramesh, B. Process knowledge management with traceability. IEEE Softw. 2002, 19, 50–52. [CrossRef]
157. Lee, J.T.; Huang, S.; Dovek, M. PMR with Improved Writability and Process Controllability by Double Layer Patterning. U.S.
Patent 8,027,125 B2, 2011.
158. Barnett, S. Introduction to Mathematical Control Theory; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1975.
159. Daoutidis, P.; Zachar, M.; Jogwar, S.S. Sustainability and process control: A survey and perspective. Chem. Eng. Mater. Sci. 2016,
44, 184–206. [CrossRef]
160. Iwaniec, D.M.; Cook, E.M.; Davidson, M.J.; Berbes-Blazquez, M.; Georgescu, M.; Krayenhoff, E.S.; Middel, A.; Sampson, D.A.;
Grimm, N.B. The co-production of sustainable future scenarios. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 197, 103744. [CrossRef]
161. Carpenter, S.R.; Booth, E.G.; Gillion, S. Plausible futures of a social-ecological system: Yahara watershed, Wisconsin, USA. Ecol.
Soc. 2015, 20, 10. [CrossRef]
162. Iwaniec, D.M.; Wiek, A. Advancing sustainability visioning practice in planning—The general plan update in Phoenix, Arizona.
Plan. Pract. Res. 2014, 29, 543–568. [CrossRef]
163. Siva, V.; Gremyr, I.; Bergquist, B.; Garvare, R.; Zobel, T. The support of quality management to sustainable development: A
literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 138, 148–157. [CrossRef]
164. Bastas, A.; Liyanage, K. Sustainable supply chain management: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 726–744. [CrossRef]
165. Vörös, J.; Rappai, G. Process quality adjusted lot sizing and marketing interface in JIT environment. Appl. Math. Model. 2016, 40,
6708–6724. [CrossRef]
166. Benesova, A.; Hirman, M.; Steiner, F.; Tupa, J. Determination of changes in process management within Industry 4.0. Procedia
Manuf. 2019, 38, 1691–1696. [CrossRef]
167. Kabugo, J.C.; Jamsa-Jounela, S.L.; Schiemann, R.; Binder, C. Industry 4.0. based process data analytics platform: A waste-to-energy
plant case study. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2020, 115, 105508. [CrossRef]
168. Enyoghasi, C.; Badurdeen, F. Industry 4.0 for sustainable manufacturing: Opportunites at the product, process, and system levels.
Resour. Conversat. Recycl. 2021, 166, 105362. [CrossRef]
169. Butnaru, G.L.; Miller, A.; Nita, V.; Stefanica, M. A new approach on the quality evaluation of tourist services. Econ. Res. Ekon.
Istraz. 2018, 31, 1418–1436. [CrossRef]
170. Butnaru, G.L.; Miller, A. Conceptual approaches on quality and theory of tourism services. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2012, 3, 375–380.
[CrossRef]
171. Butnaru, G.L. Service quality and its competitive advantage. Case study of a hotel, Acta Universitatis Danubius. Economica 2017,
13, 70–87.
172. Landherr, M.; Schneider, U.; Bauernhansl, T. The application center Industrie 4.0—Industry-driven manufacturing, research and
development. Procedia CIRP 2016, 57, 26–31. [CrossRef]
173. Yu, F.; Schweisfurth, T. Industry 4.0 technology implementation in SMEs—A survey in the Danish-German border region. Int. J.
Innov. Stud. 2020, 4, 76–84. [CrossRef]
174. Neumann, W.P.; Winkelhaus, S.; Groose, E.H.; Glock, C.H. Industry 4.0 and the human factor—A systems framework and analysis
methodology for successful development. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 233, 107992. [CrossRef]
175. Grassi, A.; Guizzi, G.; Santillo, L.C.; Vespoli, S. A semi-heterarchical production control architecture for industry 4.0—Based
manufacturing systems. Manuf. Lett. 2020, 24, 43–46. [CrossRef]
176. Lodgaard, E.; Dransfeld, S. Organizational aspects for successful integration of human-machine interaction in the industry 4.0 era.
Procedia CIRP 2020, 88, 218–222. [CrossRef]
177. Kadir, B.A.; Broberg, O. Human well-being and system performance in the transition to industry 4.0. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2020, 76,
102936. [CrossRef]
178. Gallo, T.; Santolamazza, A. Industry 4.0 and human factor: How is technology changing the role of the maintenance operator?
Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 180, 388–393. [CrossRef]
179. Chiarini, A. Industry 4.0, quality management and TQM world. A systematic literature review and a proposed agenda for further
research. TQM J. 2020, 32, 603–616. [CrossRef]
180. Broday, E.E. The evolution of quality: From inspection to quality 4.0. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2022. ahead of print. [CrossRef]

Quality 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 Electronic and Automation Department, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Turkey

Keywords: Industry 4.0; quality; technology; quality management; sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3329. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063329 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21

Figure 1. Flow-chart of the study.

2.1. Smart Technologies in Industry 4.0

2.2. Big Data in Industry 4.0

2.3. Cloud Computing in Industry 4.0

2.4. Blockchain in Industry 4.0

2.5. Cyber-Physical Systems in Industry 4.0

2.6. 3D Printers in Industry 4.0

2.7. Augmented Reality in Industry 4.0

3.1. Quality Costs in Industry 4.0

3.2. Quality Control in Industry 4.0

3.3. Quality Performance in Industry 4.0

performance, such as product performance, product/service quality, on-time delivery,

3.4. Quality Management in Industry 4.0

Figure 2. Quality criteria.

3.5. Quality Criteria

3.5.2. Controllability of Quality

3.5.3. Sustainability of Quality

3.6. Quality Components

3.6. Quality Components

Figure 3. Quality components.

3.6.1. Quality of Process

3.6.2. Quality of Technology

3.6.3. Quality of Human

3.6.4. Quality of Economy

In the first stageInofthe

Figure 5.Figure 5. Flow-chart

In conducting the classification study, studies in engineering, management, and pro-

In conducting the classification study, studies in engineering, management, and pro-

You might also like