Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Industrie 4.0 – Risiken für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Welt

Zusammenfassung

Industrie 4.0 soll zahlreiche Potenziale für die industrielle Wertschöpfung bieten, die vor allem kurz- bis mittelfristig jedoch durch Risiken in der Umsetzung begleitet werden. Dabei finden sich derzeit in der Forschung nur wenige Untersuchungen zu den Risikodimensionen von Industrie 4.0, denen allesamt ein ganzheitlicher Überblick fehlt. Auf Basis dieser Forschungslücke nutzt dieser Beitrag die Triple Bottom Line der Nachhaltigkeit, um Risiken in deren Dimensionen Ökonomie, Ökologie und Soziales zu analysieren. Dabei werden insbesondere kleine und mittlere Unternehmen (KMU) untersucht, da diese bislang vergleichsweise wenig Aufmerksamkeit im Rahmen von Industrie 4.0 erfahren haben. Basierend auf sechs Experteninterviews werden ökonomische, ökologische, soziale sowie weitere Risiken im Kontext von Industrie 4.0 für KMU analysiert. Aus den Ergebnissen werden Implikationen für die Praxis abgeleitet sowie Ansätze für weitere Untersuchungen aufgezeigt.

Diese Publikation ist im Rahmen des Projektes „Sustainable Smart Industry – The Industrial Internet of Things as a model for future sustainable industrial value creation“ der Emerging Fields Initiative der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg entstanden und wurde durch diese gefördert.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Almeida, M. F. J. (2011). Organisational learning and leadership styles in healthcare organisations: An exploratory case study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(8), 782–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ananthram, S., & Chan, C. (2013). Challenges and strategies for global human resource executives: Perspectives from Canada and the United States. European Management Journal, 31(3), 223–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, W., Schlund, S., Marrenbach, D., & Ganschar, O. (2014). Industrie 4.0 – Volkswirtschaftliches Potenzial für Deutschland. Berlin, Stuttgart: BITKOM, Fraunhofer IAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauernhansl, T., ten Hompel, M., & Vogel-Heuser, B. (2014). Industrie 4.0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik: Anwendung, Technologien, Migration. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, M., Hielscher, S., & Pies, I. (2014). Commitment Strategies for Sustainability: How Business Firms Can Transform Trade-Offs Into Win-Win Outcomes. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(1), 18–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beier, G., Niehoff, S., Ziems, T., & Xue, B. (2017). Sustainability aspects of a digitalized industry – A comparative study from China and Germany. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 4(2), 227–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonekamp, L., & Sure, M. (2015). Consequences of Industry 4.0 on Human Labour and Work Organisation. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 6(1), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brettel, M., Friederichsen, N., Keller, M., & Rosenberg, M. (2014). How Virtualization, Decentralization and Network Building Change the Manufacturing Landscape: An Industry 4.0 Perspective. International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial and Mechatronics Engineering, 8(1), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2014). German Mittelstand: Motor der deutschen Wirtschaft – Zahlen und Fakten zu deutschen mittelständischen Unternehmen. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannell, C. F., & Kahn, R. L. (1968). Interviewing. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson, (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2. Auflage (S. 525–595). Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, W. S., Kim, M. S., Jang, K. H., Song, J. H., Rodrigue, H., Chun, D. M., … & Min, S. (2016). From design for manufacturing (DFM) to manufacturing for design (MFD) via hybrid manufacturing and smart factory: A review and perspective of paradigm shift. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 3(2), 209–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, K., Jiang, P., & Zheng, M. (2017). Environmental and economic sustainability-aware resource service scheduling for industrial product service systems. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 28(6), 1303–1316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in information systems positivist case research: Current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 597–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246–1264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the Sustainable Corporation. Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fysikopoulos, A., Pastras, G., Alexopoulos, T., & Chryssolouris, G. (2014). On a Generalized Approach to Manufacturing Energy Efficiency. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 73(9-12), 1437–1452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, M., & Pessel, E. (2016). Industry 4.0 and sustainability impacts: Critical discussion of sustainability aspects with a special focus on future of work and ecological consequences. Annals of Faculty Engineering Hunedoara – International Journal of Engineering, 1(16), 131–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K.G., & Hamilton, A.L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glavič, P., & Lukman, R. (2007). Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(18), 1875–1885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graebner, M. E., & Eisenhardt, K.M., (2004). The seller’s side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 366–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Günterberg, B. & Wolter, H. (2002), Unternehmensgrößenstatistik 2001/2001 – Daten und Fakten. Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, E. G., Grosse-Dunker, F., & Reichwald, R. (2009). Sustainability innovation cube – a framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4) 683–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, C., Thiede, S., Kara, S., & Hesselbach, J. (2011) Energy Oriented Simulation of Manufacturing Systems-Concept and Application. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 60(1), 45–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, E., & Rüsch, M. (2017). Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as future prospects on logistics. Computers in Industry, 89, 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, M. S., & Muhammad, G. (2016). Cloud-assisted Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) – Enabled framework for health monitoring. Computer Networks, 101, 192–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance. Beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(3), 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., & Helbig, J. (2013), Umsetzungsempfehlungen für das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0. Abschlussbericht des Arbeitskreises Industrie 4.0. Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasabov, E. (2015). Start‐up difficulties in early‐stage peripheral clusters: The case of IT in an emerging economy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 727–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, D. J., Peters, L., & O’Connor, G. C. (2009). Intra-organizational networking for innovation-based corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 221–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiel, D., Müller, J. M, Arnold, C., & Voigt, K.-I. (2017). Sustainable Industrial Value Creation: Benefits and Challenges of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(8), 1740015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content Analysis, 3. Auflage. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl, M. R., Da Cunha, J. C., Maçaneiro, M. B., & Cunha, S.K. (2016). Relationship Between Innovation And Sustainable Performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(6), 1650047.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.-G., Feld, T., & Hoffmann, M., (2014). „Industry 4.0“. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(4), 239–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Bagheri, B., & Kao, H.-A. (2015). A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3(1), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markley, M. J., & Davis, L. (2007). Exploring future competitive advantage through sustainable supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 37(9), 763–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., Parhankangas, A., Coupet, J., Welch, E., & Barnum, D.T. (2016). Strategic Decision Making for the Triple Bottom Line. Business Strategy and the Environment 25(3), 193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, J., Dotzauer, V., & Voigt, K.-I. (2017). Industry 4.0 and its Impact on Reshoring Decisions of German Manufacturing Enterprises. In C. Bode, R. Bogaschewsky, M. Eßig, R. Lasch, & W. Stölzle (Hrsg.), Supply Management Research – Advanced Studies in Supply Management (S. 165–179). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, W., MacDonald, C., & Arnold, D.G. (2004). Getting to the Bottom of “Triple Bottom Line”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peukert, B., Benecke, S., Clavell, J., Neugebauer, S., Nissen, N.F., & Uhlmann, E. (2015). Addressing Sustainability and Flexibility in Manufacturing Via Smart Modular Machine Tool Frames to Support Sustainable Value Creation. Procedia CIRP, 29, 514–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building Sustainable Organizations. The Human Factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 34–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2017). Environmental sustainability and production: taking the road less travelled. International Journal of Production Research, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, S. A., & Flanigan, R. L. (2016). Developing competitive advantage using the triple bottom line: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(4), 449–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sendler, U., Baum, G., Borcherding, H., Broy, M., Eigner, M., Huber, A., Kohler, H., Russwurm, S., & Stümpfle, M. (2013). Industrie 4.0. Beherrschung der industriellen Komplexität mit SysLM. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seow, C., & Jamali, D. (2006). Insights into triple bottom line integration from a learning organization perspective, Business Process Management Journal, 12(6), 809–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrouf, F. & Miragliotta, G. (2015). Energy Management Based on Internet of Things: Practices and Framework for Adoption in Production Management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 100, 235–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spath, D., Ganschar, O., Gerlach, S., Hämmerle, M., Krause, T., & Schlund, T. (2013), Produktionsarbeit der Zukunft – Industrie 4.0. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, T., & Seliger, G. (2016). Opportunities of Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP, 40, 536–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D., & Bergin, R. (2006). Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9(1), 26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veza, I., Mladineo, M., & Gjeldum, N. (2015). Managing Innovative Production Network of Smart Factories. IFAC-Papers OnLine, 48(3), 555–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan, J. (2011). Advances in Cyber-Physical Systems Research. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, 5(11), 1891–1908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinert, N., Chiotellis, S., & Seliger, G. (2011): Methodology for Planning and Operating Energy-Efficient Production Systems. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 60(1), 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weltkommission für Umwelt und Entwicklung (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4. Auflage. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, W.-B., Jeong, J.-W., Noh, S. D., & Yee, J. T. (2015). Energy Simulation Framework Integrated with Green Manufacturing- Enabled PLM Information Model. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 2(3), 217–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhong, R. Y., Huang, G. Q., Lan, S., Dai, Q. Y., Chen, X., & Zhang, T. (2015). A big data approach for logistics trajectory discovery from RFID-enabled production data. International Journal of Production Economics, 165, 260–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, W., Piramuthu, S., Chu, F., & Chu, C. (2017). RFID-enabled flexible warehousing. Decision Support Systems, 98, 99–112.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Deutschland

    Kai-Ingo Voigt, Julian M. Müller & Johannes W. Veile

  2. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Unternehmensführung & Controlling, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Deutschland

    Wolfgang Becker

  3. Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Deutschland

    Meike Stradtmann

Authors
  1. Kai-Ingo Voigt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian M. Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes W. Veile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wolfgang Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meike Stradtmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai-Ingo Voigt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Unternehmensführung & Controlling, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Wolfgang Becker

  2. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Internationale Rechnungslegung und Wirtschaftsprüfung, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Brigitte Eierle

  3. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Innovationsmanagement, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Alexander Fliaster

  4. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Vertrieb und Marketing, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Björn Ivens

  5. School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Alexander Leischnig

  6. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Supply Chain Management, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Alexander Pflaum

  7. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Produktion und Logistik, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Eric Sucky

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Voigt, KI., Müller, J.M., Veile, J.W., Becker, W., Stradtmann, M. (2019). Industrie 4.0 – Risiken für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen. In: Becker, W., et al. Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Welt. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22129-4_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22129-4_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-22128-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-22129-4

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation