Industry 5.0 Perspective on Feeding Production Lines

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Michele Chivilò	--	3196	2024-02-03 11:18:12	\|
2	format correct	Catherine Yang	Meta information modification	3196	2024-02-04 02:26:14	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su152216088

The emerging concept of Industry 5.0 is fostering companies to consider the three pillars of human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. How such a new perspective can be effectively declined and practically guide the introduction of new technologies is a challenge to be addressed.

Industry 5.0 human centricity sustainability resilience

1. Introduction

Investment in technological progress is essential to the competitiveness of the industrial sector. A survey conducted by the Material Handling Industry (MHI) revealed that an increasing number of companies are dedicating funds to innovation, recuperating from losses incurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic ^[1]. Moreover, the current labor market transformations are attributed to technological advancements, including the growth of artificial intelligence, in addition to geopolitical changes and increasing environmental and social pressures ^[2]. Today, it is becoming increasingly important, even in the industrialized world, to prioritize not only issues related to technological advancement, but also concerns regarding sustainability, society, and the establishment of flexible and resilient processes amidst change and uncertainty ^[3].

A new paradigm is emerging—the concept of Industry 5.0—in response to current trends. The term was first coined in 2015 by Michael Rada in an article on LinkedIn ^[4]. Rada advocated for a shift away from Industry 4.0, emphasizing the importance of placing humans back at the center of production processes and viewing technological innovations as tools that “not work for us, but work with us” ^[4]. It is only in 2021 that a clear and concise definition of the term is established. In January 2021, in fact, the European Commission published a report entitled “Industry 5.0: Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry” ^[5]. Industry 5.0, as recognized by the European Commission, acknowledges the capacity of industry to achieve social objectives that go beyond employment and growth by paying greater attention to the environment and the well-being of workers. The new definition of Industry 5.0 gives rise to three fundamental pillars:

Human centricity: Industry 5.0 should not rely on technology alone, but on people, who have been and will continue to be a crucial resource for the competitiveness of companies, especially in activities that require flexibility, customization, and distinctiveness ^[6].
Sustainability: The Industry 4.0 scenario solely promotes production growth without considering the depletion of non-renewable resources, emissions, climate change, and biodiversity loss ^[7]. Instead, Industry 5.0 aims to be sustainable by using energy-efficient technologies and innovative methods that encourage intelligent production planning in order to preserve the environment ^[5].
Resilience: The pandemic situation, the uncertainty of supply and production, and the inability to make forecasts in increasingly complex contexts have highlighted how many production systems are not very resilient ^[3]. Resilience can be defined as the ability of an industry or organization to enhance the creation of robust and flexible processes in a proactive manner in order to avoid, resist, adapt to, or recover from unexpected and unforeseen disruptions ^[8].

Thus, Industry 5.0 requires a societal change that enables sustainable and resilient operations ^[9], just as human involvement is crucial in the decision-making process of organizations ^[10] and to increase the competitiveness of a company ^[11]. The goal of Industry 5.0 is to enhance productivity and production efficiency, while maintaining respect for the environment and human beings ^[6]. The primary goal of Industry 4.0 was to automate and enhance the efficiency and flexibility of processes ^[12] through the use of various technologies (including the Internet of Things, digital twins, and artificial intelligence) ^[13]. However, this optimization completely disregards the human element ^[6]. Regrettably, the accomplishment of this objective will result in the total cost being borne by humans as automation will lead to the loss of conventional occupations ^[14]. Based on an investigation of the American labor market ^[15], the addition of one extra robot for every thousand workers leads to a decline of 0.2% in the employment/population ratio and 0.42% in wages. The Industry 4.0 concept fails to fulfill social requirements or provide solutions for climate crises and emergencies on a planetary scale.

Thus, Industry 5.0 has been devised to mitigate the social and environmental dilemmas that the Fourth Industrial Revolution dismisses, specifically the exacerbation of disparities, pollution, human rights, and democracy violations ^[16]. It is important to emphasize that Industry 5.0 should not be viewed as an alternative or continuation of Industry 4.0, but rather as its complement and extension. Alongside maximizing profits, it is imperative to enhance the well-being of all stakeholders, comprising investors, workers, customers, society, and the environment ^[5].

2. Industry 5.0

Logistics have been considerably impacted by noteworthy technological advancements and innovation, with intralogistics operations and material handling systems recording the most significant challenges ^[17], looking like a research field with remarkable development potential ^[18], especially with the advent of e-commerce ^[19]. They encompass activities related to receiving, storing, and internally transporting goods within the company ^[20].

Several authors have presented and defined numerous technologies to support intralogistics, including:

Wireless Sensor Network (WSN): Systems comprising a network of sensors and wireless communication that can identify objects and their characteristics. They can also be worn by operators to enhance health and safety conditions ^[21].
Augmented Reality Systems: Devices, such as glasses, tablets, and phones, that can be employed by workers to gain real-time information useful for enhancing decision-making and work procedures ^[22]. Such devices assist employees in numerous tasks, including order picking.
Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV): Automated vehicles for horizontal material movement are utilized to transport goods from one point to another within a company without the need for direct operator control ^[23].
Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMR): Industrial robots equipped with a variety of sensors that analyze and interpret their immediate environment. This allows them to optimize transport routes for goods ^[24]. In contrast to AGVs, AMRs are designed to work in cooperation with the operator and are able to avoid any static or dynamic obstacles they may encounter along the way ^[25]. Another distinct feature is the decision and control system. The decision-making process of an AGV fleet is centralized, with a central unit responsible for the planning and routing decisions of all AGVs. Conversely, AMRs have the ability to communicate and work independently, resulting in a decentralized decision-making process ^[26].
Civil drones: Material handling devices designed for use in warehouses to facilitate handling operations at various heights and inventory control. The technologies discussed previously are mainly suitable for ground floor movement ^[27]. Moreover, drones can be utilized for safe operations in remote and potentially dangerous environments ^[28].
Exoskeletons: Devices and equipment that operators can wear to reduce efforts and overcome fatigue when handling heavy loads ^[29]. The primary advantages of the exoskeleton include decreased muscular effort, enhanced comfort, and improved dexterity, as described in Spada et al. ^[30].
Smart logistics items, including pallets, boxes, containers, and packaging, are capable of gathering and transmitting data. This information is paramount for ensuring traceability and controlling processes ^[31].

Such technologies can either support or replace activities traditionally performed by humans. Grosse et al. ^[32], in particular, analyze technologies and label them in terms of cognitive support, physical support, and substitution for order-picking activities.

The integration of logistics with production and transport has become a critical trend ^[33]. Sometimes, intralogistics resources can complicate the relationship between production and the warehouse ^[34]. Even so, these technologies provide numerous benefits, such as improved flexibility, productivity, reduced costs, and time ^[35], factors that may be higher if there is a high level of attention toward humans ^[36]. Additionally, employing automated solutions may alleviate labor shortages and enhance safety by reducing accidents, given that the majority of errors stem from human factors ^[37]. Pasparakis et al. ^[38] demonstrate that the implementation of robotic technologies in warehouse operations leads to benefits for workers, improving overall job satisfaction.

However, collaborations between humans and new technological innovations raise safety concerns for operators that cannot be neglected ^[39] since the 5.0 Industrial Revolution increases the interaction between humans and machines ^[40]. Consequently, it is crucial to consider the potential impact on worker well-being ^[41], and prevent any psychological strain caused by the challenge of adapting to new digital tools ^[42]. There should not be an excessive reliance on technology ^[43]; rather, it ought to aid human beings in repetitive and monotonous activities or when greater precision is required ^[44]. Therefore, the current relevance of cognitive ergonomics ^[45] and the training of professionals dealing with these increasingly complex, interconnected, and systemic systems ^[46] is growing.

To obtain a comprehensive understanding of the effects of emerging technologies on society, it is essential to utilize supplementary tools. Consequently, frameworks have been explored in literature, outlining how to implement new technologies in the context of a collaborative effort between humans and machines, established through new forms of interaction.

Lagorio et al. ^[47] present a framework to aid organizations in selecting new technological solutions, starting from the analysis of activities, and including human factors. Integration of strategic and operational objectives is crucial alongside the identification of the areas requiring intervention. While analyzing activities and their potential development, human factors are categorized into physical, cognitive, and organizational components. Successively, the proposed model is validated by introducing a supportive operational framework to facilitate companies in their adoption of new technologies ^[48].

Lorson et al. ^[49] introduce a framework that connects human–machine interactions with behavioral issues, affecting the operational activities of a warehouse. The authors advocate for the description of the interaction, identification of probable issues, and characterization of the problems linked with human and behavioral factors. Finally, they evaluate the impacts of the issues on the system.

Thylén et al. ^[50] utilize the Human–Technology–Organization model to examine the interactions between humans, technology, and organization in the introduction of AGVs in a production plant. The authors provide a comprehensive analysis of how these three groups influence each other, highlighting the challenges that arise and proposing actions to address them.

Dossou et al. ^[51] have created a framework for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) undergoing digital transformation. This framework involves the implementation of a digital twin based on the concepts of Industry 5.0. To ensure the validity of the results presented, an example of a manufacturing SME is included.

All the models available in the literature focus mainly on human factors and human-machine interactions. They recommend that companies analyze the physical, cognitive, and organizational factors that alter the implementation of new technologies, emphasizing the human-centric pillar of Industry 5.0. In ^[52] it is indicated that these works should be extended to obtain a holistic vision of Industry 5.0. Therefore, a new framework is required that presents an integrated perspective of Industry 5.0 and extensively examines all three pillars.

3. The 5.0 Industry-Based Framework

A framework aimed at assisting enterprises in adopting state-of-the-art technologies for the supply of production lines is proposed (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Framework for feeding production lines with an Industry 5.0 perspective.

This framework is designed to align with the three fundamental principles of Industry 5.0 by addressing the key questions already mentioned in the introduction.

For each question, an operational checklist is proposed with critical points that should be met in order to efficiently implement and manage new technology to feed assembly lines, in conformity with the concepts of Industry 5.0.

3.1. How Can Production Lines Be Supplied in a Human-Centric Way?

To increase the human centricity of assembly line processes, user-oriented technologies must be implemented while also prioritizing workplace safety and operator participation during implementation. To satisfy these critical points, Figure 2 provides a list of actions that would be appropriate to take, which will be explained in detail in the following subsections.

Figure 2. Operational checklist for the human centricity pillar.

3.1.1. User-Oriented Technologies

To ensure that technology is user-oriented, it should simplify the activities of all operators (both on the line and in the warehouse) and make processes and workflows more efficient and productive. For instance, these technologies must handle hazardous, complicated, or non-value-added intralogistics activities.

The technologies involved in interacting with operators for activity management or calling systems should be selected with consideration for ease of use and accessibility to all, including individuals without advanced technical skills. It is important to ensure that everyone can utilize these technologies effectively. For example, by using smartphones and tablets, learning levels could be very high, as most people use these devices daily.

In addition, the use of clear and intuitive visual management tools can help to reduce operator training times and facilitate the integration of new technologies into existing workflows.

3.1.2. Keeping Workplace Safe

When introducing new technologies, it is essential to assess safety in the workplace.

It is crucial to identify technologies that provide the highest level of protection, by examining their safety features in detail. These technologies should be designed to work cooperatively with humans.

To ensure safety, it is advisable to conduct a risk analysis and, at least for the most dangerous risks, to define solutions to reduce the severity or probability of occurrence to an acceptable level. Particular attention should be paid to the safety of the routes of people and equipment feeding the production lines, minimizing the risk of intersection/collision between them.

Another important analysis to consider is the interference between the different handling vehicles operating in the plant. This is crucial in order to prevent collisions or traffic congestion among them.

Additionally, it is necessary to minimize the risk of materials being overturned during material handling, transportation, and storage when introducing a new device.

Finally, it is recommended to conduct ergonomic assessments when altering the arrangement of materials in warehouses or on production lines, in order to enhance workers’ safety, well-being, and health.

3.1.3. Operator Participation

It is important to involve operators in the process of implementing new technologies from the beginning, considering their needs and preferences in the working environment. In fact, their feedback can provide important information to optimize efficiency and usefulness.

For this purpose, it is advisable to interview both the line and warehouse operators to jointly define the positioning of materials and to discuss any changes that should be made within the plant. The aim is to put feedback from users and people who come into contact with the technologies at the heart of the process, so that decisions are shared and agreed by all, rather than being imposed from above. This can contribute to increased acceptance among workers.

In addition, clear communication about the use and benefits of integrating these technologies can facilitate employee acceptance and adoption.

Finally, it is crucial to organize targeted and appropriate training for those who will use or come into direct contact with the new technology.

3.2. How Can Production Lines Be Supplied Sustainably?

The technologies selected for feeding production lines must be geared towards sustainability. Thus, resource optimization, recycling, and the use of eco-friendly materials should be emphasized. The key actions to achieve these objectives are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Operational checklist for the sustainability pillar.

3.2.1. Optimization of Resource Use

It is important to consider environmental performance when choosing which technology to adopt and which supplier to rely on. It is preferable to choose solutions that require the least amount of energy during operations. Furthermore, priority should be given to suppliers who are located closest to the point of installation. This approach can limit emissions related to the transportation of the technology solutions, thus reducing the overall environmental impact from a life cycle perspective.

In order to reduce time and associated resource consumption, it is advisable to optimize the movement of materials, e.g., by revising paths from storage locations to production lines, a feature that may usually be provided together with the technology itself (e.g., AMR).

Lastly, the technologies ought to provide lower energy consumption compared to existing methods of material handling. An analysis of energy consumption must be carried out both in the current state (AS IS) and in the future state (TO BE) to quantify energy savings.

3.2.2. Recycling or Environmentally Friendly Material Adoption

In order to establish a true culture of sustainability within the company, it is important to evaluate even small actions that can promote reuse, recycling, or adoption of less-impacting materials. For example, if it is necessary to build new tools for material handling (e.g., trolleys), it is advisable to reuse/recycle materials already present in the plant and directly involve workers in their design and construction. Alternatively, low environmental impact materials should be preferred when purchasing.

3.3. How Can Production Lines Be Supplied Resiliently?

In this context, resilience is the ability to adapt, resume activities, and maintain optimal performance in the face of unexpected changes, problems, or failures. Figure 4 shows the key points of interest that need to be addressed to ensure that the new processes can be considered resilient. Problems should be prevented from occurring through continuous monitoring, preventive maintenance, and special attention to IT security. To be prepared when problems do occur, in addition to having redundancies and backup systems in place, the technologies need to be adaptable and flexible.

Figure 4. Operational checklist for the resilience pillar.

3.3.1. Redundancy and Backup Systems

For a resilient process, it is important to have redundancies in place to continue feeding the production lines in the event of temporary technical problems with the adopted technologies.

It is also necessary to define alternative solutions and contingency plans to ensure the correct execution of material handling operations even in the case of prolonged faults or malfunctions of the new technologies.

3.3.2. Monitoring and Maintenance

Ongoing monitoring of new technologies is essential to ensure their consistent operations, just as with any other machine. Advanced sensors could be installed to monitor the performance and health of innovations and alert staff to any issues.

Preventive maintenance measures are crucial for identifying and resolving issues before they can interfere with the feeding of production lines and affect the throughput of the production system. Evolution towards conditioned/predictive maintenance relying on real-time data from sensors can limit downtime and better exploit the useful life of the equipment.

For this reason, it is essential to plan specific and continuous training for maintenance personnel, whether internal or external to the organization.

3.3.3. Adaptability and Flexibility

Technologies must be flexible and capable of adapting to varying operating conditions, whilst not disrupting the flow of feeding operations.

It’s vital to ensure that these technologies can reach all points of the plant to be served, taking into account both operational and company-specific conditions.

It is prudent to identify solutions able to face unanticipated occurrences or upcoming challenges, such as new materials to be handled, changes in layout, or positions in which materials should be delivered along the lines.

Flexible and versatile planning allows to manage changes due to the production process. Thus, it is imperative to maintain the feeding of the production lines in the most critical situations, such as when production demand increases.

Finally, selecting technologies that ensure scalability is a recommended practice, enabling easy integration of new devices in the future.

3.3.4. Cyber Security

For the production line feeding process to be deemed resilient, it is crucial to prioritize IT security.

It is important to consider cybersecurity aspects when selecting both the technology and supplier to be relied upon, e.g., for the customization of the software that enables the technologies to operate. The aim is to avoid any hidden costs that may arise from problems caused by a lack of cyber security.

To safeguard against potential cyber threats, both internal and external to the organization, it is essential to implement strict security protocols. These protocols must protect technological controls from unauthorized access and ensure operators’ safety. Any cyber-attacks on the new technology infrastructure can cause problems for the organization or even have far-reaching consequences.

It is also possible to establish audits of any software used and to define a Service Level Agreement (SLA) to obtain a prompt resolution of any problems from the supplier.

References

Miller, C.; Batty, A.; Oswald, B.; Strong, J.; Butler, R.; Hogikyan, S.; Ciriaco, N.; Heininger, K. The Responsible Supply Chain. Transparency, Sustainability, and the Case for Business. MHI Annu. Ind. Rep. 2023, 1, 5–32.
World Economic Forum. Future of Jobs Report; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2023; ISBN 978-0-08-100273-5.
Romero, D.; Stahre, J. Towards the Resilient Operator 5.0: The Future of Work in Smart Resilient Manufacturing Systems. Procedia CIRP 2021, 104, 1089–1094.
Rada, M. INDUSTRY 5.0—From Virtual to Physical. Available online: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/industry-50-from-virtual-physical-michael-rada (accessed on 4 September 2023).
Breque, M.; De Null, L.; Petridis, A. Industry 5.0 towards a Sustainable, Human-Centric and Resilient European Industry; R&I Paper Series Policy Brief; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; ISBN 9789276253082.
Nahavandi, S. Industry 5.0—A Human-Centric Solution. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4371.
Bonilla, S.H.; Silva, H.R.O.; da Silva, M.T.; Gonçalves, R.F.; Sacomano, J.B. Industry 4.0 and Sustainability Implications: A Scenario-Based Analysis of the Impacts and Challenges. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3740.
Madni, A.M.; Jackson, S. Towards a Conceptual Framework for Resilience Engineering. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2011, 39, 85–102.
Hol, A. Business Transformations within Intelligent Eco-Systems; Springer: Singapore, 2021; ISBN 9789811579905.
Golovianko, M.; Terziyan, V.; Branytskyi, V.; Malyk, D. Industry 4.0 vs. Industry 5.0: Co-Existence, Transition, or a Hybrid. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2023, 217, 102–113.
Waheed, A.; Alharthi, M.; Khan, S.Z.; Usman, M. Role of Industry 5.0 in Leveraging the Business Performance: Investigating Impact of Shared-Economy on Firms’ Performance with Intervening Role of I5.0 Technologies. Orig. Res. 2022, 12, 1–14.
Lu, Y.; Zheng, H.; Chand, S.; Xia, W.; Liu, Z.; Xu, X.; Wang, L.; Qin, Z.; Bao, J. Outlook on Human-Centric Manufacturing towards Industry 5.0. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 62, 612–627.
Lu, Y. Industry 4.0: A Survey on Technologies, Applications and Open Research Issues. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2017, 6, 1–10.
Rajnai, Z.; Kocsis, I. Labor Market Risks of Industry 4.0, Digitization, Robots and AI. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics (SISY), Subotica, Serbia, 14-16 September 2017; pp. 343–346.
Acemoglu, D.; Restrepo, P. Robots and Jobs: Evidence from Us Labor Markets. J. Political Econ. 2020, 128, 2188–2244.
Dixson-Declève, S.; Balland, P.; Bria, F.; Charveriat, C.; Dunlop, D.; Giovannini, E.; Tataj, D.; Hidalgo, C.; Huang, A.; Isaksson, D.; et al. Industry 5.0: A Transformative Vision for Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
Jafari, N.; Azarian, M.; Yu, H. Moving from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0: What Are the Implications for Smart Logistics? Logistics 2022, 6, 26.
Zrnic, N.D.; Popovic, T.M.; Milojevic, G.Z.; Kosanic, N.Z. A Survey of Research on Industry 4.0 in Intralogistics. In Proceedings of the X International Conference “Heavy Machinery-HM 2021”, Vrnjačka banja, Serbia, 23–25 June 2021; pp. 1–10.
Tutam, M. Warehousing 4.0 in Logistics 4.0. Logistics 4.0 and Future of Supply Chains. 2022, pp. 95–118. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-16-5644-6_7 (accessed on 15 September 2023).
Martínez, J.S.; Noriega, C.R. Feasibility in the Implementation of 4.0 Technologies in the Intralogistic Activities of Logistic Operators of the Department of Atlantico, a Look towards the Organizational Efficiency. EAI Endorsed Trans. Energy Web 2020, 7, 1–27.
Radivojević, G.; Milosavljević, L. The Concept of Logistics 4.0. In Proceedings of the 4th Logistics International Conference, Rome, Italy, 15-17 November 2023; pp. 283–293.
Vaidya, S.; Ambad, P.; Bhosle, S. Industry 4.0—A Glimpse. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 20, 233–238.
De Ryck, M.; Versteyhe, M.; Debrouwere, F. Automated Guided Vehicle Systems, State-of-the-Art Control Algorithms and Techniques. J. Manuf. Syst. 2020, 54, 152–173.
Conveyco Technologies Guide to AMRs. 2023. Available online: https://go.conveyco.com/amr-ebook?hsCtaTracking=26d0889a-4579-4d80-ba0c-3e06de41f59b%7C384f2d85-d89c-4438-8c70-ce4929630897 (accessed on 21 September 2023).
Barros, Í.; Nascimento, T.P. Robotic Mobile Fulfillment Systems: A Survey on Recent Developments and Research Opportunities. Rob. Auton. Syst. 2021, 137, 103729.
Fragapane, G.; de Koster, R.; Sgarbossa, F.; Strandhagen, J.O. Planning and Control of Autonomous Mobile Robots for Intralogistics: Literature Review and Research Agenda. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021, 294, 405–426.
Kostrzewski, M.; Varjan, P.; Gnap, J. Solutions Dedicated to Internal Logistics 4.0. In Sustainable Logistics and Production in Industry 4.0; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 243–262. ISBN 978-3-030-33369-0.
Kückelhaus, M.; Chung, G. The Logistics Trend Radar. DHL Cust. Solut. Innov. 2018, 5, 1–84.
Kumar, R.; Gupta, P.; Singh, S.; Jain, D. Human Empowerment by Industry 5.0 in Digital Era: Analysis of Enablers. In Advances in Industrial and Production Engineering; Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 401–410.
Spada, S.; Ghibaudo, L.; Gilotta, S.; Gastaldi, L.; Cavatorta, M.P. Analysis of Exoskeleton Introduction in Industrial Reality: Main Issues and EAWS Risk Assessment. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 236–244.
Glistau, E.; Machado, N.I.C. Industry 4.0, Logistics 4.0 and Materials—Chances and Solutions. Mater. Sci. Forum 2018, 919, 307–314.
Grosse, E.H. Application of Supportive and Substitutive Technologies in Manual Warehouse Order Picking: A Content Analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2023.
Li, J.; Qin, R.; Olaverri-Monreal, C.; Prodan, R.; Wang, F.Y. Logistics 5.0: From Intelligent Networks to Sustainable Ecosystems. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. 2023, 8, 3771–3774.
Li, M.; Guo, D.; Li, M.; Qu, T.; Huang, G.Q. Operation Twins: Production-Intralogistics Synchronisation in Industry 4.0. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 61, 5193–5211.
Alsheyadi, A.K. A Literature Review on Industry 4.0 Implementation and Performance: A Contingency Perspective. TQM J. 2023.
Wan, P.K.; Sølvsberg, E.; Eleftheriadis, R.; Fragapane, G. The Effect of Digitalization and Human-Centric on Companies’ Production Performances; Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 753–760.
Zoubek, M.; Simon, M. Evaluation of the Level and Readiness of Internal Logistics for Industry 4.0 in Industrial Companies. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6130.
Pasparakis, A.; De Vries, J.; De Koster, R. Assessing the Impact of Human–Robot Collaborative Order Picking Systems on Warehouse Workers. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2023, 61, 7776–7790.
Javaid, M.; Haleem, A. Critical Components of Industry 5.0 towards a Successful Adoption in the Field of Manufacturing. J. Ind. Integr. Manag. 2020, 5, 327–348.
Humayun, M. Industrial Revolution 5. 0 and the Role of Cutting Edge Technologies. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2021, 12, 605–615.
Longo, F.; Padovano, A.; Umbrello, S. Value-Oriented and Ethical Technology Engineering in Industry 5.0: A Human-Centric Perspective for the Design of the Factory of the Future. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4182.
Gualtieri, L.; Rauch, E.; Vidoni, R. Emerging Research Fields in Safety and Ergonomics in Industrial Collaborative Robotics: A Systematic Literature Review. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2021, 67, 101998.
Barraza de la Paz, J.V.; Rodríguez-Picón, L.A.; Morales-Rocha, V.; Torres-Argüelles, S.V. A Systematic Review of Risk Management Methodologies for Complex Organizations in Industry 4.0 and 5.0. Systems 2023, 11, 218.
Gervasi, R.; Capponi, M.; Mastrogiacomo, L.; Franceschini, F. Manual Assembly and Human–Robot Collaboration in Repetitive Assembly Processes: A Structured Comparison Based on Human-Centered Performances. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2023, 126, 1213–1231.
Trstenjak, M.; Hegedić, M.; Cajner, H.; Opetuk, T.; Tošanović, N. Cognitive Ergonomics in Industry 5.0 BT-Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing: Establishing Bridges for More Sustainable Manufacturing Systems; Silva, F.J.G., Ferreira, L.P., Sá, J.C., Pereira, M.T., Pinto, C.M.A., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 763–770.
Colella, M.; Barberio, M.; Figliola, A. The Big Vision: From Industry 4.0 to 5.0 for a New AEC Sector BT-Architecture and Design for Industry 4.0: Theory and Practice; Barberio, M., Colella, M., Figliola, A., Battisti, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-3-031-36922-3.
Lagorio, A.; Cimini, C.; Pirola, F.; Pinto, R. A Task-Based and HF-Based Reference Framework for Digital Technologies Choice and Adoption. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2021, 54, 25–30.
Lagorio, A.; Cimini, C.; Piffari, C.; Galimberti, M.; Pirola, F.; Pinto, R. Operationalisation and Validation of a Human Factors-Based Decision Support Framework for Technology Adoption in the Logistics Sector. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2023, 26, 1–23.
Lorson, F.; Fügener, A.; Hübner, A. New Team Mates in the Warehouse: Human Interactions with Automated and Robotized Systems. IISE Trans. 2023, 55, 536–553.
Thylén, N.; Wänström, C.; Hanson, R. Challenges in Introducing Automated Guided Vehicles in a Production Facility–Interactions between Human, Technology, and Organisation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2023, 61, 7809–7829.
Dossou, P.-E.; Nshokano, C. Framework for Implementing Digital Twin as an Industry 5.0 Concept to Increase the SME Performance BT-Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing: Establishing Bridges for More Sustainable Manufacturing Systems; Silva, F.J.G., Ferreira, L.P., Sá, J.C., Pereira, M.T., Pinto, C.M.A., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 590–600.
Grosse, E.H.; Sgarbossa, F.; Berlin, C.; Neumann, W.P. Human-Centric Production and Logistics System Design and Management: Transitioning from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 Transitioning from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2023, 61, 7749–7759.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Engineering, Industrial

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Michele Chivilò

Antonella Meneghetti

View Times: 85

Update Date: 04 Feb 2024

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm