Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

GELİŞMEKTE OLAN EKONOMİLERDE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR TEDARİK ZİNCİRİ İÇİN ENDÜSTRİ 4.0 GİRİŞİMLERİNE YÖNELİK GÜÇLÜKLERİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2018, Volume: 23 Issue: Endüstri 4.0 ve Örgütsel Değişim Özel Sayısı, 1521 - 1536, 30.12.2018

Abstract

Endüstri 4.0 son zamanlarda sıkça kullanılan bir kavram olmuştur. Bu kavram, gelişmekte olan ülkelerde özellikle imalat sektöründe tedarik yönetiminin sürdürülebilmesi adına önem arz etmektedir.
Endüstri 4.0 girişimlerinin, tedarik zinciri içerisindeki tüm safhaları etkilediği bilinmektedir. Bu etki geniş çapta; ekolojik, sosyal ve ekonomik alanlardadır. Özellikle Türkiye gibi gelişmekte olan ekonomiler için nispeten yeni bir kavram olan Endüstri 4.0, sürecin doğru anlaşılması ve uygulanması için net bir tanımlamaya ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.
Bu çalışma Endüstri 4.0 girişimlerinin temel güçlüklerini tanımayı ve Türk imalat sanayi perspektifinde Sürdürülebilir Tedarik Zinciri için temel güçlüklerin önceliklerini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu nedenle, tedarik zinciri sürdürülebilirliğini geliştirmek için Endüstri 4.0 girişimlerine ait 18 temel güçlük tanımlanmıştır. Bu güçlükler, bir anket formu hazırlanarak LinkedIn’de yer alan, Endüstri 4.0 ile ilgili yönetici pozisyonunda farklı şirketlerde çalışan 150 uzmana uygulanmıştır. Yapılan anketler Keşfedici Faktör Analizi (KFA) ile incelenmiştir. Endüstri 4.0 güçlükleri KFA ile dört önemli güçlük boyutuna ayrılmıştır. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme yöntemlerinden biri olan Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) ile belirlenen güçlükler ve ilgili alt güçlükler göreceli olarak sıralanmıştır. Çalışmada, en yüksek göreceli ağırlığa sahip olan güçlük, Örgütsel Güçlükler olarak belirlenmiştir. İkinci sırada Teknolojik Güçlüklerin, üçüncü sırada Legal ve Etik Güçlüklerin ve son olarak dördüncü sırada Stratejik Güçlüklerin yer aldığı ortaya konulmuştur.
Bu çalışma uygulayıcılar, politika yapıcılar, düzenleyici kurumlar ve yöneticiler için Endüstri 4.0 girişimlerinin derinlemesine anlaşılmasını sağlamak ve Sürdürülebilir Tedarik Zinciri için Endüstri 4.0 girişimlerinin önündeki potansiyel güçlükleri ortadan kaldırmak için yararlı olacağı beklenmektedir.

References

  • Brettel, M., Friederichsen, N., Keller, M., ve Rosenberg, M. (2014). How virtualization,decentralization and network building change the manufacturing landscape:an industry 4.0 perspective. Int. J. Mech. Ind. Sci. Eng., 37-44.
  • De Sousa Jabbour, A., Jabbour, C., Godinho Filho, M., ve Roubaud, D. (2018). Indus-try 4.0 and the circular economy: a proposed research agenda and originalroadmap for sustainable operations. Ann. Oper. Res., 1-14.
  • Dey, P.K. ve Cheffi, W., (2013). Green supply chain performance measurement using theanalytic hierarchy process: a comparative analysis of manufacturing organiza-tions. Prod. Plann. Control 24 (8–9), 702–720.
  • Duarte, S., ve Cruz-Machado, V. I.–1. (2017). Exploring linkages between lean and green sup-ply chain and the industry 4.0. International Conference on ManagementScience and Engineering Management (s. 1242–1252). Cham: Springer.
  • Dujin, A., Geissler, A., ve Horstkötter, D. (2014). How Europe Will Succeed. https://www.rolandberger.com/en/Publications/pub_industry_4_0_the_new_industrial_revolution.html. adresinden alındı
  • Gandhi, S., Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P., Kumar, D., (2016). A combined approach using AHP and DEMATEL for evaluating success factors in implementation of green supplychain management in Indian manufacturing industries. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.19 (6), 537–561.
  • Hair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th edition. Pearson publications, UpperSaddle River, Boston.
  • Hermann, M., Pentek, T., ve Otto, B. (2016). Design Principles for Industrie 4.0 Scenarios. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, (s. 3928-3937).
  • Hofmann, E., ve Rüsch, M. (2017). Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as futureprospects on logistics. Comput. Ind., 89, 23–34.
  • Hu, A.H., Hsu, C.W., (2010). Critical factors for implementing green supply chain man-agement practice: an empirical study of electrical and electronics industries in Taiwan. Management Research Review 33 (6), 586–608.
  • Johannes, C. d., ve Strandhagen, J. O. (2017). Research into the potentialrevenue models for Industry 4.0 supported sustainable products. Procedia CIRP, 63, 721–726.
  • Kaiser, H.F., 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39 (1), 31–36.
  • Kamblea, S. S., Gunasekaranb, A., ve Gawankar, S. A. (2018). Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Safety and Environmental Protection(117), 408-425.
  • Luthra, S., ve Mangla, S. K. (2018). Evaluating challenges to Industry 4.0 initiatives for supply chainsustainability in emerging economies. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 117, 168-179.
  • Luthra, S., Garg, D., Haleem, A., (2016)a. The impacts of critical success factorsfor implementing green supply chain management towards sustainability:an empirical investigation of Indian automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 121,142–158.
  • Luthra, S., Mangla, S.K., Xu, L., Diabat, A., (2016)b. Using AHP to evaluate barriers inadopting sustainable consumption and production initiatives in a supply chain.Int. J. Prod. Econ. 181, 342–349.
  • Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P., Barua, M.K., (2015). Risk analysis in green supply chain usingfuzzy AHP approach: a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 104, 375–390.
  • Mittermair, M. (2015). Industry 4.0 initiatives. SMT: Surf. mt. Technol., 30(3), 58-63.
  • Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Methods. McGraw Hill, New York.
  • Oesterreich, T., ve Teuteberg, F. (2016). Understanding the implications of digitisation and automation in the context of Industry 4.0: a triangulation approach and elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Comput. Ind. (83).
  • Papalexandrou, M.A., Pilavachi, P.A., Chatzimouratidis, A.I., (2008). Evaluation of liquidbio-fuels using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 86(5), 360–374.
  • Saaty, T.L., (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. Mac Graw-Hill, International Book Company, New York, pp. 287.
  • Tjahjono, B., Esplugues, C., Ares, E., ve Pelaez, G. (2017). What does Industry 4.0 mean to Supply Chain? Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 1175-1182.
  • Wan, J., Yi, M., Li, D., Zhang, C., Wang, S., ve Zhou, K. (2016). Mobile Services for Customization Manufacturing Systems: An Example of Industry 4.0. IEEE Access, 4, s. 8977-8986.
  • Wong, K. S., ve Kim, M. H. (2014). Towards self-awareness privacy protection for Internet of things data collection. Journal of Applied Mathematics.

INDUSTRY 4.0 INITIATIVES EVALUATION FOR SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAIN IN EMERGING ECONOMIES

Year 2018, Volume: 23 Issue: Endüstri 4.0 ve Örgütsel Değişim Özel Sayısı, 1521 - 1536, 30.12.2018

Abstract

Industry 4.0 is the current topic that is widely used in business and industry. It is also relatively novel for the developing countries like Turkey in terms of supply chain sustainability in industry sector. Due to the importance of defining the business system especially designing, producing, delivering, safety and efficiency, Industry 4.0 initiatives are needed to be analyzed for an effective business practices. This paper aims to recognize key challenges of Industry 4.0 and analyze the main challenges for an effective supply chain sustainability in an emerging economy referring Turkish manufacturing industry perspective. Adaptation of such initiatives is not that easy due to the nature of the challenges. For this reason, the present research identifies 18 main challenges to Industry 4.0 initiatives and analyzes through 150 responses gathered from Turkish manufacturing sector using a questionnaire based survey. In order to classify the main challenges, Explanatory Factor Analysis is used. Further, Analytical Hierarchy Process is used to rank the identified dimensions of challenges and related challenges. The findings revealed that Organizational challenges showed the highest importance followed by Technological challenges, Legal and Ethical challenges and Strategic challenges as the least importance.
It is expected that this study will be useful for practitioners, policy makers, regulators and managers to provide an indepth understanding of Industry 4.0 initiatives and to eliminate potential challenges for Industry 4.0 initiatives for the Sustainable Supply Chain.

References

  • Brettel, M., Friederichsen, N., Keller, M., ve Rosenberg, M. (2014). How virtualization,decentralization and network building change the manufacturing landscape:an industry 4.0 perspective. Int. J. Mech. Ind. Sci. Eng., 37-44.
  • De Sousa Jabbour, A., Jabbour, C., Godinho Filho, M., ve Roubaud, D. (2018). Indus-try 4.0 and the circular economy: a proposed research agenda and originalroadmap for sustainable operations. Ann. Oper. Res., 1-14.
  • Dey, P.K. ve Cheffi, W., (2013). Green supply chain performance measurement using theanalytic hierarchy process: a comparative analysis of manufacturing organiza-tions. Prod. Plann. Control 24 (8–9), 702–720.
  • Duarte, S., ve Cruz-Machado, V. I.–1. (2017). Exploring linkages between lean and green sup-ply chain and the industry 4.0. International Conference on ManagementScience and Engineering Management (s. 1242–1252). Cham: Springer.
  • Dujin, A., Geissler, A., ve Horstkötter, D. (2014). How Europe Will Succeed. https://www.rolandberger.com/en/Publications/pub_industry_4_0_the_new_industrial_revolution.html. adresinden alındı
  • Gandhi, S., Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P., Kumar, D., (2016). A combined approach using AHP and DEMATEL for evaluating success factors in implementation of green supplychain management in Indian manufacturing industries. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.19 (6), 537–561.
  • Hair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th edition. Pearson publications, UpperSaddle River, Boston.
  • Hermann, M., Pentek, T., ve Otto, B. (2016). Design Principles for Industrie 4.0 Scenarios. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, (s. 3928-3937).
  • Hofmann, E., ve Rüsch, M. (2017). Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as futureprospects on logistics. Comput. Ind., 89, 23–34.
  • Hu, A.H., Hsu, C.W., (2010). Critical factors for implementing green supply chain man-agement practice: an empirical study of electrical and electronics industries in Taiwan. Management Research Review 33 (6), 586–608.
  • Johannes, C. d., ve Strandhagen, J. O. (2017). Research into the potentialrevenue models for Industry 4.0 supported sustainable products. Procedia CIRP, 63, 721–726.
  • Kaiser, H.F., 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39 (1), 31–36.
  • Kamblea, S. S., Gunasekaranb, A., ve Gawankar, S. A. (2018). Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Safety and Environmental Protection(117), 408-425.
  • Luthra, S., ve Mangla, S. K. (2018). Evaluating challenges to Industry 4.0 initiatives for supply chainsustainability in emerging economies. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 117, 168-179.
  • Luthra, S., Garg, D., Haleem, A., (2016)a. The impacts of critical success factorsfor implementing green supply chain management towards sustainability:an empirical investigation of Indian automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 121,142–158.
  • Luthra, S., Mangla, S.K., Xu, L., Diabat, A., (2016)b. Using AHP to evaluate barriers inadopting sustainable consumption and production initiatives in a supply chain.Int. J. Prod. Econ. 181, 342–349.
  • Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P., Barua, M.K., (2015). Risk analysis in green supply chain usingfuzzy AHP approach: a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 104, 375–390.
  • Mittermair, M. (2015). Industry 4.0 initiatives. SMT: Surf. mt. Technol., 30(3), 58-63.
  • Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Methods. McGraw Hill, New York.
  • Oesterreich, T., ve Teuteberg, F. (2016). Understanding the implications of digitisation and automation in the context of Industry 4.0: a triangulation approach and elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Comput. Ind. (83).
  • Papalexandrou, M.A., Pilavachi, P.A., Chatzimouratidis, A.I., (2008). Evaluation of liquidbio-fuels using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 86(5), 360–374.
  • Saaty, T.L., (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. Mac Graw-Hill, International Book Company, New York, pp. 287.
  • Tjahjono, B., Esplugues, C., Ares, E., ve Pelaez, G. (2017). What does Industry 4.0 mean to Supply Chain? Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 1175-1182.
  • Wan, J., Yi, M., Li, D., Zhang, C., Wang, S., ve Zhou, K. (2016). Mobile Services for Customization Manufacturing Systems: An Example of Industry 4.0. IEEE Access, 4, s. 8977-8986.
  • Wong, K. S., ve Kim, M. H. (2014). Towards self-awareness privacy protection for Internet of things data collection. Journal of Applied Mathematics.
There are 25 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Özüm Eğilmez This is me 0000-0001-5251-5629

Gözde Koca This is me 0000-0001-6847-6812

Publication Date December 30, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 23 Issue: Endüstri 4.0 ve Örgütsel Değişim Özel Sayısı

Cite

APA Eğilmez, Ö., & Koca, G. (2018). GELİŞMEKTE OLAN EKONOMİLERDE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR TEDARİK ZİNCİRİ İÇİN ENDÜSTRİ 4.0 GİRİŞİMLERİNE YÖNELİK GÜÇLÜKLERİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(Endüstri 4.0 ve Örgütsel Değişim Özel Sayısı), 1521-1536.