International Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Open Access policy

Editorial Staff

Related Links

Journal Metrics

Financial Policies

Crossmark Policy

Complaint

News

FAQ

Open Special Issues

Propose a Special Issue

Publication Ethics

Journal Policies

Editorial Board

Peer Review Policies

Guide for Reviewers

Reviewers in 2023

Reviewers in 2022

Reviewers in 2021

Reviewers in 2020

Reviewers in 2019

Reviewers in 2018

Join us as reviewer

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

Development of the field of organizational performance during the industry 4.0 period

Document Type : Review Paper

Authors

1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Mus Alparslan University, Mus, Guzeltepe village, Turkey.

2 Department of Motor Vehicles and Transportation Technologies, Istanbul University Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Hadimkoy, Turkey.

Abstract

As well as social and cultural life, commercial life has also been affected by the industrial revolutions. Because the structures of enterprises have changed how their performance is evaluated, have indispensably changed. In today's brutally competitive environment, it is of great importance that enterprises constantly assess their performance so that they can maintain their existence firstly and achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Due to the current importance of the topic in this study, it was examined how the field of organizational performance has developed in the Industry 4.0 period. The purpose of this study is to reveal whether Industry 4.0 and the field of organizational performance show parallelism in terms of evolution. This parallelism was examined in terms of use of the artificial intelligence techniques in organizational performance evaluation methods. Therefore, available literature related the topic was reviewed by way of the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) protocol developed by Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic [6] and the traditional literature review method. As a result of the research, it was seen that the field of organizational performancehas not developed in parallel with Industry 4.0 until now.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References
  1. Abubakar, A., Hilman, H., & Kaliappen, N. (2018). New tools for measuring global academic performance. Sage open, 8(3), 1-10.
  2. Adapa, S., Bhullar, N., & de Souza, S. V. (2016). A systematic review and agenda for using alternative water sources for consumer markets in Australia. Journal of cleaner production, 124, 14-20.
  3. Almeida, M. D. C., Brito, R. S., Jorge, C., & Cardoso, M. A. (2021). Performance assessment system to wastewater utilities strategic planning. Water, 13(18), 2489. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13182489
  4. Bai, C., Dhavale, D., & Sarkis, J. (2014). Integrating fuzzy c-means and TOPSIS for performance evaluation: an application and comparative analysis. Expert systems with applications, 41(9), 4186-4196.
  5. Barnabe, F. (2011). A “system dynamics-based balanced scorecard” to support strategic decision making: insights from a case study. International journal of productivity and performance management, 60(5), 446-473.
  6. Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews in IS. Journal of information technology, 30(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.26
  7. Büchi, G., Cugno, M., & Castagnoli, R. (2020). Smart factory performance and Industry 4.0. Technological forecasting and social change, 150, 119790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119790
  8. Martínez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Alfonso-Ruiz, F. J. (2020). Digital technologies and firm performance: The role of digital organisational culture. Technological forecasting and social change, 154, 119962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119962
  9. Chytas, P., Glykas, M., & Valiris, G. (2011). A proactive balanced scorecard. International journal of information management, 31(5), 460-468.
  10. Costa, L. B. M., & Godinho Filho, M. (2016). Lean healthcare: review, classification and analysis of literature. Production planning & control, 27(10), 823-836.
  11. Draghici, A., Popescu, A. D., & Gogan, L. M. (2014). A proposed model for monitoring organizational performance. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 124, 544-551.
  12. Drath, R., & Horch, A. (2014). Industrie 4.0: Hit or hype? [industry forum]. IEEE industrial electronics magazine, 8(2), 56-58.
  13. Duman, M. C., & Akdemir, B. (2021). A study to determine the effects of industry 4.0 technology components on organizational performance. Technological forecasting and social change, 167, 120615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120615
  14. Elbanna, S., Eid, R., & Kamel, H. (2015). Measuring hotel performance using the balanced scorecard: a theoretical construct development and its empirical validation. International journal of hospitality management, 51, 105-114.
  15. Fechete, F., & Nedelcu, A. (2019). Performance management assessment model for sustainable development. Sustainability, 11(10), 2779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102779
  16. Glock, C. H. (2017). Decision support models for managing returnable transport items in supply chains: a systematic literature review. International journal of production economics, 183, 561-569.
  17. Goli, A., & Mohammadi, H. (2021). Developing a sustainable operational management system using hybrid Shapley value and Multimoora method: case study petrochemical supply chain. Environment, development and sustainability, 1-30. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-021-01844-9
  18. Hester, P. T., & Meyers, T. J. (2012). Multi-criteria performance measurement for public and private sector enterprises. In applications of management science (pp. 183-206). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  19. Hussain, T., Edgeman, R., Eskildsen, J., Shoukry, A. M., & Gani, S. (2018). Sustainable enterprise excellence: attribute-based assessment protocol. Sustainability, 10(11), 4097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114097
  20. Kadir, B. A., & Broberg, O. (2020). Human well-being and system performance in the transition to industry 4.0. International journal of industrial ergonomics, 76, 102936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2020.102936
  21. Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A., & Dhone, N. C. (2020). Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing practices for sustainable organisational performance in Indian manufacturing companies. International journal of production research, 58(5), 1319-1337.
  22. Kiraz, A., & Açikgöz, N. (2021). A fuzzy-logic-based approach to the EFQM model for performance enhancement. Sādhanā, 46(1), 1-15.
  23. Klovienė, L., & Uosytė, I. (2019). Development of performance measurement system in the context of industry 4.0: a case study. Inžinerinė ekonomika, 30(4), 472-482.
  24. Lin, B., Wu, W., & Song, M. (2019). Industry 4.0: Driving factors and impacts on firm’s performance: an empirical study on China’s manufacturing industry. Annals of operations research, 1-21. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10479-019-03433-6
  25. Liu, J. W. (2020). Developing GAHP concepts for measurement of travel agency organizational performance. Soft computing, 24(11), 8051-8059.
  26. Longaray, A. A., Ensslin, L., Dutra, A., Ensslin, S., Brasil, R., & Munhoz, P. (2019). Using MCDA-C to assess the organizational performance of industries operating at Brazilian maritime port terminals. Operations research perspectives, 6, 100109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2019.100109
  27. Machado, M. C., Mendes, E. F., Telles, R., & Sampaio, P. (2020). Towards a new model for SME self-assessment: a Brazilian empirical study. Total quality management & business excellence, 31(9-10), 1041-1059.
  28. Mamabolo, A., & Myres, K. (2020). Performance measurement in emerging market social enterprises using a balanced scorecard. Journal of social entrepreneurship, 11(1), 65-87.
  29. Modak, M., Pathak, K., & Ghosh, K. K. (2017). Performance evaluation of outsourcing decision using a BSC and Fuzzy AHP approach: a case of the Indian coal mining organization. Resources policy, 52, 181-191.
  30. Morioka, S. N., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2016). A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. Journal of cleaner production, 136, 134-146.
  31. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.
  32. Pirozzi, M. G., & Ferulano, G. P. (2016). Intellectual capital and performance measurement in healthcare organizations: an integrated new model. Journal of intellectual capital, 17(2), 320-350.
  33. Ponte, D., Pesci, C., & Camussone, P. F. (2017). Between mission and revenue: measuring performance in a hybrid organization. Managerial auditing journal, 32(2), 196-214.
  34. Rathore, Z., & Elwakil, E. (2020). Hierarchical fuzzy expert system for organizational performance assessment in the construction industry. Algorithms, 13(9), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/a13090205
  35. Robert, M., Giuliani, P., & Gurau, C. (2022). Implementing industry 4.0 real-time performance management systems: the case of Schneider Electric. Production planning & control, 33(2-3), 244-260.
  36. Searcy, C. (2011). Updating corporate sustainability performance measurement systems. Measuring business excellence, 15(2), 44-56.
  37. Shaik, M., & Abdul‐Kader, W. (2012). Performance measurement of reverse logistics enterprise: a comprehensive and integrated approach. Measuring business excellence, 16(2), 23-34.
  38. Shaik, M. N., & Abdul-Kader, W. (2014). Comprehensive performance measurement and causal-effect decision making model for reverse logistics enterprise. Computers & industrial engineering, 68, 87-103.
  39. Thomé, A. M. T., Scavarda, L. F., & Scavarda, A. J. (2016). Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Production planning & control, 27(5), 408-420.
  40. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3), 207-222.
  41. Valenzuela, L., & Maturana, S. (2016). Designing a three-dimensional performance measurement system (SMD3D) for the wine industry: a Chilean example. Agricultural systems, 142, 112-121.
  42. Wang, C. N., Tibo, H., & Nguyen, H. A. (2020). Malmquist productivity analysis of top global automobile manufacturers. Mathematics, 8(4), 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8040580
  43. Watts, T., & McNair‐Connolly, C. J. (2012). New performance measurement and management control systems. Journal of applied accounting research, 13(3), 226-241.
  44. Yaghoobi, T., & Haddadi, F. (2016). Organizational performance measurement by a framework integrating BSC and AHP. International journal of productivity and performance management, 65(7), 959-976.
International Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering
Volume 11, Issue 2
June 2022
Pages 134-154
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics