Proceedings of the 2017 Industrial and Systems Engineering Conference

K. Coperich, E. Cudney, H. Nembhard, eds.

Critical Success Factors for Digital Manufacturing Implementation

in the Context of Industry 4.0

Abstract ID: 2191

Ana Carolina Shinohara1, Elias Hans Dener Ribeiro da Silva1, Edson Pinheiro de Lima1,2,
Fernando Deschamps1,3, Sergio Eduardo Gouvea da Costa1,2
1Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program,

Pontifical Catholic University of Parana

2Federal University of Technology – Parana
3Federal University of Parana

Curitiba, Brazil

Abstract
Considering Industry 4.0 context, Digital Manufacturing (DM) stands out by combining conventional manufacturing
technologies with digital techniques for modeling and analyzing the production system. Basically, its main goal is to
assist product lifecycle management and to enable the development, through improvements and maturity evolution,
of all aspects related to factory and product design. It is noticed there is a significant amount of information related
to DM concepts and technologies, however its implementation process is not widely framed. This paper aims to
propose a set of critical success factors (CSF) for DM implementation. For mapping CSF it is applied a research
strategy based on academic literature review and consulting reports. Therefore, interviews were conducted for
assessing digital manufacturing CSF influences in automotive assembly factory. The main result is a conceptual
framework to assist organizations in developing a strategy for DM implementation, and map for that purpose all the
required resources and capabilities. This research contributes for updating digital manufacturing CSF discussion in
the new context of Industry 4.0 and it provides a guide to check the organizational readiness for DM.

Keywords
Digital Manufacturing, Critical Success Factors, Implementation process, Industry 4.0

1. Introduction
The Internet revolution is driving the industries' transformation. Alongside technological advances, the subtler but
still powerful drivers of social and behavioral change have also prompted consumer industries to evolve. Major
social, economic and technological developments are propelling the industries' digital transformation and creating
new risks and opportunities for consumer businesses [1].
Industry 4.0, also known as Fourth Industrial Revolution, is based on the following concepts: CPS - Cyber-Physical
Systems (a fusion of the physical and the virtual worlds), the Internet of Things and the Internet of Services. This
scenario is already changing several aspects of manufacturing companies [2].
Digital manufacturing (DM) is a subject that is becoming highly relevant in the global technological scenario as one
of the areas of knowledge within the Industry 4.0 agenda. DM is the ability to connect different parts of the
manufacturing life-cycle through digital data that carries design intent and process information, and utilizes that
information for intelligent automation and smarter, more efficient business decisions [3]. If, in the past decades,
digital manufacturing systems were focused on the static product design (visualization of the CAD project of
products), nowadays, its state of the art to focus on the modeling and simulation of dynamic manufacturing plants
[4].
Industry 4.0 technologies such as IoT data analysis, Big Data, integrated communication, smart machines and
autonomous robots are variables that also directly affect the context of digital manufacturing. This change in
production context is occurring due the new technologies and it requires a new analysis approach. Thus, Industry 4.0
has been converting aspects and variables that were previously not relevant (or nonexistent) in crucial variables to
the companies that aims reach world-class excellence

199
 Shinohara, A.C., Ribeiro da Silva, E.H.D., Pinheiro de Lima, E., Deschamps, F.
Previous studies [5] have shown that publications on the subject of digital manufacturing have grown, with several
publications about technologies related [4, 6-11], some researches regarding content models [12-15], a few case
studies [16-19] and a lack of in-depth studies of the implementation process in companies. Some studies about
Critical Success Factors (CSF) for digital manufacturing have been conducted, but did not consider this new
manufacturing context. Thus, many relevant variables, both for implementation and use, were not included in those
analyses.
There is a relevant mass of information about DM concept, DM applied technologies, however are still scarce
information of how the implementation process should be conducted and, consequently, which are its CSF on
Industry 4.0 scenario.
Thus, this paper aims to identify and map the critical success factors for digital manufacturing implementation in the
context of Industry 4.0.
For mapping CSF it was applied a research strategy based on academic literature review and consulting reports.
Therefore, interviews with digital manufacturing users/deployers were conducted at an automotive company to
verify if the problems currently encountered in DM implementation are on the list of CSF, thus giving greater
reliability to the factors compilation.

2. Literature Review
In the literature, there are several definitions for Digital Manufacturing or Digital Factory. All of them converges in
the technical point of view of digital technologies combination to facilitate the integration of product, process and
resources information. However, there is a divergence of scope on those studies.
Some authors include activities related to factory floor, production planning and supply chain management [20-22,
12], while others authors restrict the scope to product, process and resource development departments [23 - 25].
This study uses the extended concept of Digital Manufacturing, which in addition to developing a product design in
digital platforms, produce and simulate prototypes based on process analysis and resource planning, also involves
the collection, processing, analysis and real-time reporting of production planning, plant planning and integration
with stakeholders. Therefore, DM represents the data across the entire product lifecycle.
From the management point of view, unlike isolated conducts of planning activities in traditional enterprises, Digital
Manufacturing focuses on integrated planning that includes all stakeholders in the planning process.
The main gain of using DM is that all aspects of the plant can be developed and improved until the physical product
manufacturing meets all the goals in terms of quality, time and cost. Only when the digital product successfully
cross the production line in the digital factory, the product is released for physical manufacturing [26]. Since the cost
and time of correction in the virtual environment is substantially lower than the corrections made in the physical
environment, it is clear the gains of companies that stand out in DM implementation.

3. Methodology
This study is divided into four steps: (i) Literature review seeking the CSF for digital manufacturing in the context
of Industry 4.0; (ii) Interviews with automotive company's employees that are participating on DM implementation
process to map the difficulties experienced; (iii) Improvement of the CSF list based on the difficulties cited during
the interviews; (iv) Analysis of results.
In the first step, it was conducted a literature review on academic journals and consulting reports developed by
organization specialized in concepts of Industry 4.0. From this information, it was possible to compile a set of CSF
for DM implementation.
During the second step, it was performed interviews in an automotive multinational organization, which has a digital
transformation vision in the context of Industry 4.0. This company has been conducting the DM implementation
process during the last 2 years. These interviews aims to map the main organization difficulties during this process
and to verify which CSF were not well developed, as well identify new variables that directly affect the success of
implementation project.
12 interviews were carried out with employees from different departments, involving: product and process
engineering, layout development, equipment development and IT. Several departments were consulted enabling a
global view of the company situation in relation to digital manufacturing.
To mitigate the risk of external influence (anchoring) on the answers, only an open question was used thus leading
each interviewed to show the difficulties experienced in DM context that influence their daily work. The interview
question was: “Currently, which are the main difficulties you see on the digital manufacturing implementation in the
company? From technical and organizational aspects to financial and innovation aspects”

200
 Shinohara, A.C., Ribeiro da Silva, E.H.D., Pinheiro de Lima, E., Deschamps, F.
In the third step, an improvement of the initial CSF list was made based on the answers obtained with the interviews.
For that, the causes of the current difficulties were analyzed to transform them into CSF. This process resulted in an
improved list of issues that companies need to be aware for adaptation in the new competitive scenario.
Finally, in the fourth step, the CSF were categorized and analyzed. For this categorization, it was used the Risk
Breakdown Structure proposed by PMI [24]: (i) Technical: includes aspects such as technical, technology,
complexity and interfaces, performance and quality; (ii) Organizational: includes aspects such as estimates, planning,
control and communication; (iii) Project management: includes aspects such as project dependencies, resources,
financing and prioritization; (iv) External: includes aspects such as subcontractors and suppliers, regulations, market
and customer.

5. Results
During the literature review 70 CSF were initially mapped and after an analysis to refine the list it was possible to
compile them in 27 CSF that directly affect the success of DM in the context of Industry 4.0, as is shown on Table 2.
The interviews conducted resulted on 20 difficulties related to the daily work considering DM concepts and tools. In
order to contextualize them in the CSF it was necessary to identify the root causes of the problems. Table 1 lists the
difficulties and classifies them according to the Risk Breakdown Structure proposed by PMI.

Table 1 - List of difficulties

Difficulties Freq. Tech. Org. P.M. Ext.
1 Data network does not meet the minimum requirements 7 X
2 Lack of specialized training 5 X
3 Hardware does not meet the minimum requirements 4 X
4 Lack of tools integration 3 X
5 Lack of technical knowledge 3 X X
6 Low productivity 3 X X X
7 Poorly defined scope for DM project 3 X X
8 Lack of internal stakeholders integration 2 X
9 Limited licenses 2 X
10 High financial investment 2 X
11 Learning process to use DM technologies demands a lot of time 2 X X
12 High workload does not allow innovation activities 2 X X
13 Cultural barriers 1 X
14 Lack of tool support 1 X X
15 Bureaucracy for decision making 1 X
16 Governmental aspects 1 X
17 Lack of collaborative tools with suppliers 1 X X
18 Data management 1 X
19 Poorly communication 1 X X
20 Lack of standardization for new technologies utilization 1 X

The available infrastructure suggests to be a key difficulty reported. The appropriate data network has been shown to
be relevant being cited 7 times by the interviewees. The need of a viable speed for transfer data is justified by the
large amount of data received and sent by users. It was notice a low productivity due the large file size, especially
when dealing with CAD files, generating a low added value in the process of loading, sharing and saving files. In
addition to the network speed, the lack of appropriate hardware that support DM tools is also related to the
infrastructure issue.
The planning of training programs was also a critical problem in the company, as it was cited 5 times and it was the
root cause of other difficulties reported, such as the lack of technical knowledge and the low productivity. The high
time demanded for learning is influenced by the complexity of DM tools. To solve this problem the managers need
to better plan the employees workload seeking to enable new technologies adaptation.
However, other variables can be the root cause for this low productivity. Some interviewees mentioned that the
traditional method was simpler and faster to perform their work activities than using DM tools. Besides the
specialized training and the technical problems, it was notice that the employees working on DM scenario has not
yet understood its real benefits and proposal. Thus, the project scope (also referred as a difficulty) was not well
defined, since it is clear the doubts among the users regarding the scope of DM within the company. In summary,

201
 Shinohara, A.C., Ribeiro da Silva, E.H.D., Pinheiro de Lima, E., Deschamps, F.
the root causes of low productivity can be: (i) lack of specialized training, (ii) lack of communication of the project
scope for all stakeholders, (iii) workload management to enable innovation activities, and (iv) lack of appropriate
infrastructure.
Technical support was also listed as a problem by the interviewees. Only training programs are not enough, constant
technical support is required for the successful DM implementation.
Besides it, the lack of systems and tools integration was likewise reported as a difficulty. There is a huge diversity of
systems for each department within the organization. This aspect directly affects the DM and its root cause is related
to interoperability of different systems.
DM implementation success also depends on the change of the organization project structure, once the phase of
numerical analysis using DM tools demands more time than conventional method while providing more quality and
complexity for analysis. However, the gain is perceived on implantation phase, which is performed faster and has
less reworks, reducing cost and improving quality.
The CSF related to financial issue influence on several difficulties listed. The lack of appropriated infrastructure, the
need of specialized training, skilled people working in the project and the limited licenses reflect on organization
financial planning.
Issues related to organizational strategic management are found in cultural barriers and decision-making
bureaucracy. Culture needs to be innovation-driven and employees need to be engaged in this project. Moreover,
decision-making needs to be agile to keep up with the constant technologies that come from the current scenario.
On external context, the supply chain integration is also an objective of DM. It is necessary to have collaborative
tools integrating factory and its suppliers. During the interviews, it was noticed a difficulty of sharing project
information with all stakeholders. Furthermore, government environment also influence DM, as some countries have
protectionist markets and hamper import of both software and hardware technologies.
From these aspects raised by company’s employees and literature review it was possible to develop Table 2 with a
set of CSF that need to be considered before DM implementation project kickoff in the context of Industry 4.0.

Table 2 - Critical Success Factors for Digital Manufacturing Implementation

Literature
Categories CSF for DM implementation in the context of Industry 4.0 Interview
Review
Data management interoperability related to data management (data
1 migration, information management, differentiated file extensions) and X X
tools and systems integration
2 Operating system speed and ease software configuration X X
3 Real-time data X
4 Infrastructure and facilities for the project (rooms, computers, networks) X X
5 System architecture that support data from IoT X
Technical 6 Connectivity X
Ability to transform large amounts of data (Big Data) into knowledge
7 X
and decision-making
8 Advanced robotics X
9 Cybersecurity X
10 Traceability X
11 Logistic automation X
12 Technical support for DM tools X X
13 Availability of collaborative tools X
14 User knowledge X X
15 Training programs (project team, support team and users) X X
16 Decision-makers trained and authorized (agility in decisions) X X
17 Support and continuous commitment of top management X
18 Economic and profitability analysis X X
Organizational 19 Centralized management of products, processes and resources X X
20 Dynamic design of business processes and engineering X
21 Be an attractive company seeking the best available resources X
22 Rapid responses to market technological developments X
23 Innovation-driven culture X X
24 Workload management to enable innovation activities X
Implementation strategy (communication, planning, scope, objectives,
Project 25 roles, responsibilities, change management and support)
X X

202
 Shinohara, A.C., Ribeiro da Silva, E.H.D., Pinheiro de Lima, E., Deschamps, F.
Management 26 Employee adherence, commitment and participation X
27 Collaborative organizations with self-training teams X
28 Composition of the project team X X
29 Internal and external communication X X
30 Research and development model X
31 Partners with knowledge and experience X
32 Governmental aspects X
Extern
33 Integration with external suppliers X
34 Greater customer focus X

Most of the difficulties pointed out during the interviews come from poorly implemented CSF already found in the
literature and consulting reports. Four factors were added to this list: rapid responses to market technological
developments, Workload management to enable innovation activities, governmental aspects and integration with
external suppliers.
Although DM is considered a technical matter, the influence of organizational factors is critical. The difficulties
related to understanding the project scope and workload planning evince this fact. However, technical issues also
need attention because directly affects user performance.
Even though not all CSF mapped in the literature have been cited in the interviews, it is necessary to consider them
on DM implantation strategy.

6. Conclusion
It has become evident during the interviews most of the difficulties pointed out regarding digital manufacturing are
related to basic implementation requirements, such as system understanding, training, workload and infrastructure. It
was also clear that complex factors, such as architecture for IoT data, cybersecurity and integrated management
were not mentioned because it is still far from the daily reality of the employees.
Thus, it is noticed there is a low maturity of DM implementation, although it has started the process 2 years ago.
One of the key difficulties found is the miss understanding about the real purpose of digital manufacturing. A clear
project scope definition, difficulties and benefits in each phase, besides specialized training in the early stages of the
project have showed primordial for a success implementation.
This study fulfilled its objective by presenting the CSF for DM implementation in the new context of Industry 4.0. It
was presented a set of CSF found in the literature and consulting reports, besides confronting these results with the
DM users’ feedback within a multinational automotive company.
For further studies, it is suggested an extension of this research in companies on the process of DM implementation,
seeking to expand and improve the list of CSF. It is also suggested to prioritize the CSF and develop an
organizational maturity assessment tool for DM implementation. The purpose of this tool is to enable enhanced
decision-making by prioritizing factors since the beginning of the project and which organizational aspects should
be improved for no delays or demotivation of the project stakeholders.
This research contributes for updating digital manufacturing CSF discussion in the new context of Industry 4.0 and
it provides a guide to check the organizational readiness for DM.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Araucaria Foundation (Fundação Araucária de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnólogico do Paraná - Brazil) and Paraná State Government for financial support.

References
1. WEF - WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM., 2016, “Digital Transformation of Industries: Consumer
Industries. White Paper.
2. Almada-Lobo, F., 2015, “The Industry 4.0 revolution and the future of Manufacturing Execution Systems”.
Journal of Innovation Management, 3(4), 16-21.
3. MESA (2016) “Smart Manufacturing – The Landscape Explained”, White Paper #52, Smart Manufacturing
Working Group, MESA.org.
4. Duarte Filho, N., Botelho, S. C., Carvalho, J. T., Marcos, P. B., Maffei, R. Q., Oliveira, R. R., Oliveira, R.
R., and Hax, V. A., 2010, “An immersive and collaborative visualization system for digital manufacturing”.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 50(1), 1253–1261.

203
 Shinohara, A.C., Ribeiro da Silva, E.H.D., Pinheiro de Lima, E., Deschamps, F.
5. Ribeiro Da Silva, E. H. D., Shinohara, A. C., Rocha, L. M., Pinheiro De Lima, E., and Deschamps, F.,
2015, “Análise de estudos na área de manufatura digital: uma revisão da literatura”. Proc. of the Production
Engineering Symposium. November 9-11, Bauru, Brazil.
6. Butterfield, J., Mcclean, A., Yan Yin, R. Curran, R. Burke, B. W., and Devenney, C., 2010, “Use of DM to
Improve Management Learning in Aerospace Assembly”. Journal of Aircraft, 47(1), 315-322.
7. Shariatzadeha, N., Sivarda, G., and Chena, D., 2012, “Software Evaluation Criteria for Rapid Factory
Layout Planning, Design and Simulation”. Procedia CIRP, 3(1) 299 – 304.
8. Dombrowski, U., and Ernst, S., 2013, “Scenario-based simulation approach for layout planning”. Procedia
CIRP, 12(1), 354 – 359.
9. Hincapié, M., Ramírez, M. J., Valenzuela, A., and Valdez, J. A., 2014, “Mixing real and virtual
components in automated manufacturing systems using PLM tools”. International Journal on Interactive
Design and Manufacturing, 8(1), 209–230.
10. Chen-Fu, C., Mitsuo, G., Yongjiang, S., and Chia-Yu, H., 2014, “Manufacturing intelligence and
innovation for digital manufacturing and operational excellence”. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,
25(1), 845–847.
11. Dulina, L., and Bartanusova, M., 2015, “CAVE Design Using in Digital Factory”. Procedia Engineering,
100(1), 291 – 298.
12. Bracht, U., and Masurat, T., 2005, “The Digital Factory between vision and reality”. Computers in
Industry, 56(4), 325–333.
13. Yon-Iun, X., and Zhou-Ping, Y., 2006, “Digital manufacturing - the development direction of the
manufacturing technology in 21st century”. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering in China, 1(2), 125-130.
14. Rohrlack, T., 2008, “The Digital Factory - From Concept to Reality”. Bentley solution for automobile
manufacturers. White Pater.
15. Stef, I., Draghici, G., and Draghici, A., 2013, “Product design process model in the Digital Factory
context”. Procedia Technology, 9(1), 451-462.
16. Kim, H., Lee, J.,Park, J., Park, B., and Jang, D., 2002, “Applying digital manufacturing technology to ship
production and the maritime environment”. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(5), 295-305.
17. Vidal, O. C., Kaminski, P. C., and Netto, S. N., 2009, “Exemplos de aplicação do conceito de fábrica
digital no planejamento de instalações para armação de carroçarias na indústria automobilística brasileira”.
Produto & Produção, 10(1), 75-84.
18. Fonseca, J. C., 2013, “Fatores de risco na implementação de um projeto de fábrica digital – Um estudo de
caso em organização multinacional do setor automotivo”. B.Sc. Dissertation, Federal University of Parana.
19. Caggiano, A., Caiazzo, F., and Teti, R., 2015, “Digital Factory Approach for Flexible and Efficient
Manufacturing Systems in the Aerospace Industry”. Procedia CIRP, 37(1), 122-127.
20. Zuelch, G., and Stowasser, S., 2005, “The Digital Factory: An instrument of the present and the future”.
Computers in Industry, 56(1), 323-234.
21. Zulch, G, Grieger, T, 2005, “Modelling of occupational health and safety aspects in the Digital Factory”.
Computers in Industry, 56(1), 384-392.
22. Woerner, J., Woern, H., 2005, “A security architecture integrated co-operative engineering platform for
organized model exchange in a Digital Factory environment”, Computers in Industry, 56(1), 347-360.
23. Wohlke, G., Schiller, E., 2005, “Digital Planning Validation in automotive industry”, Computers in
Industry, 56(1), 393-405.
24. Kühn, W., 2008, “Paradigm shift in simulation methodology and practice Separation of modelling the
physical system behavior and control modelling”, Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Computer
Modeling and Simulation, April 1-3, Cambridge, UK, 380 – 385.
25. Matsuda, M., Kashiwase, K., Sudo, Y., 2012, “Agent Oriented Construction of a Digital Factory for
Validation of a Production Scenario”, 45th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
26. PM, 2008, “A guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge – PMBOK®”. Pennsylvania, 4 ed., USA.

204
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.