From Industry 4.0 to Industry 6.0 (eBook)

Carolina Machado, J. Paulo Davim (Autoren)

eBook Download: EPUB

2025
523 Seiten
Wiley-Iste (Verlag)
978-1-394-37276-8 (ISBN)

Infos

Industry 4.0 marked a revolution in industrial processes, introducing connectivity and digitalization as key elements to improve efficiency and productivity. However, technological evolution moves ever forward, and now the prospect of Industry 6.0 has emerged, a new era that promises to radically transform the way we view industrial production.

Indeed, Industry 6.0 looks to go further, introducing revolutionary concepts that will redefine how we view industrial production. Conscious of this reality, From Industry 4.0 to Industry 6.0 highlights the importance and impact this technological evolution will have on the way today's organizations develop into proactive, innovative and competitive agents.

Organized into eight chapters, From Industry 4.0 to Industry 6.0 can be used by various potential stakeholders, not only academics and researchers, but managers, engineers, practitioners and other professionals who develop their professional activity in different areas of management and engineering.

Carolina Machado is Associate Professor with Habilitation at the University of Minho, Portugal. Her research interests include HRM-IHRM-HRM in SMEs, Industry 5.0 and sustainability.

J. Paulo Davim is Professor at the University of Aveiro, Portugal. His research interests include manufacturing, materials, mechanical engineering, Industry 5.0 and sustainability.

Textauszug

1
From Industry 4.0 Onward: Is There a Need for “Industry 6.0”?

The process of industrialization – as a sustained trend in history and developing new socio-economic concepts – presuposes higher rates of growth of the economy and a structural change. It is on this basis diverse concepts of industrial revolutions have been accepted. These concepts have been coherent to reveal singular developments. Recently, the accepted concept of Industry 4.0 (i4.0) has shown some limitations regarding the need to develop automation technology in an anthropocentric orientation. This is why Industry 5.0 has two orientations: either the experiences that adopt this concept seek solutions to adapt the human factor to the features of the technology or, knowing the social and organizational requirements, look for solutions to develop this technology in accordance with these requirements. The debate is still developing. There is not yet conceptual maturity to propose a new topic that would be based in a new eventual structural change observed like a possible “Industry 6.0” era. Most arguments for an Industry 6.0 are still those which have been discussed for Industry 4.0, since they are mostly based on eventual not yet ready developments of technology. That is why we should continue the debate on the late developments of industrialization and its social and economic conditions.

1.1. Introduction

When invited to write about the concept “Industry 6.0”, I was curious about its novelty. I have been working for more than a decade on the topic of Industry 4.0, and more recently on Industry 5.0. These last concepts integrate all of the dimensions related with the technological development in the manufacturing industry, and they especially integrate options on company management strategies.

The case for Industry 5.0 is even more advanced: it integrates the older debate on the new organizational options and design and sustainability criteria for management. “Integrates” means that, at the end of the day, the forefront manufacturing technology must be designed considering organizational criteria. Therefore, these criteria have to be consistent with the circular economy and sustainable factors. In this sense, new ideas are completely new according to scientific literature. They have been recently compartmented: technology development and its readiness levels, for one side, and new organizational design, social partners involvement and management strategies, for another side. Now, what is proposed, is for a new joint concept to become debated, leading to more advanced standards. The interdisciplinary scientific community has not yet completely involved with this discussion. There are still few case studies and successful benchmarks. We are still in the early phases of the debate.

To my surprise, some authors are starting to speak about Industry 6.0. My curiosity led me to research the relevant literature, wide discussions and experiments, but unfortunately, I did not find enough evidence. The published literature is mostly conjectural, based on impressive scenarios, and tries to push for a concept that is not yet consistent in terms of novelty and based on any evidence. It is also revealing that most scholars involved in the debate on Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 are not discussing Industry 6.0. Why? My answer would be that there is not yet conceptual maturity to propose a new topic that would be based in a new eventual structural change observed – even in few cases – in the manufacturing industry. Most arguments for an Industry 6.0 are still those that have been discussed for Industry 4.0, once they are mostly based on eventual not yet ready developments of technology.

Instead of being disturbing, these facts can also contribute to the rediscussion of these concepts on structural changes concerning how products are manufactured, as well as how the conventional sector and labor markets may change during the next few years. They can also contribute to making these types of scenarios more accurate, ensuring certain elements of evidence are relevant to companies and policymakers. If this is not the case, they can become useless, a simple playground for conceptual flags that do not consider the previous steps explaining the emergent changes or social needs. In the following sections, we will demonstrate this.

1.2. From Industry 4.0 toward Industry 5.0

The concept of Industry 5.0 (i5.0) aims to place workers’ well-being at the center of the production process [BRE 21]. This concept is centered on the idea of anthropocentric technology, which implies that technology, organizations and workplaces must be adapted to human and social needs. There are, however, still unclear problems regarding this concept. Knowing that the Industry 4.0 (i4.0) concept has significant limitations regarding the need to develop automation technology in an anthropocentric orientation, Industry 5.0 has two orientations: either the experiences that adopt this concept seek solutions to adapt the human factor to the characteristics of the technology or, knowing the social and organizational requirements, look for solutions to develop this technology in accordance with these requirements [MON 23; CAN 23b]. This is a problem that is unlikely to be resolved.

i5.0 is a concept that arises as an evolution of the industry and human–machine interaction. While i4.0 is focused on automation and scanning production processes, i5.0 search to integrate more harmoniously and collaboratively humans and machines on the desktop [BRE 21].

It seems, however, that a sound i4.0 concept-centric concept still cannot include the perspective and experience of the ethical sciences, sustainability and social and human science. In other words, the concept of i4.0 has been almost exclusively focused on technology development, despite also discussing the need to include the human factor [BUT 18]. However, in reality, it has not happened. We continue to see a prevalence in technology development and not in the development of working conditions where technology could be designed for this development [CIM 20]. For this reason, the idea of i5.0 is focused on this concept of anthropocentric technology and implies that technology, organizations and workplaces should be tailored to human and social needs. For this reason, a potential concept of Industry 6.0 (i6.0) completely focused on future advances on computing technologies and manufacturing systems seems unclear as of yet. In fact, there is still room to develop i4.0 based on experiments of technology development, such as cloud computing, cyber-physical systems (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT) and the interconnection of these with intelligent robotics, or with additive manufacturing [ELH 21; HIR 16; KRI 21; THU 19].

1.2.1. Limits of the technological developments

The focus on technological achievements and the articulation between artificial intelligence with new manufacturing technologies have shown many dilemmas and difficulties. Since the technical system is the more advanced, the decision loop must involve human input. In practical terms, machine learning still has too many limitations to enable direct substitution by humans.

If this is true for the moment, will it still be true in the next decade? What about in two decades? These questions bring us to two types of reasoning: on the one hand, we will need more complete and critical knowledge on the possible trends and roadmaps needed; on the other hand, we still must think about the role of humans in a more complex environment with increased capacities in terms of artificial intelligence. What are the limits? Are they known? Do we know the technology limits well enough, or do they have to be imposed by laws and regulations? Do we know the human limits? These are the essential questions on the possible transitions of industrial revolutions.

Thus, i5.0 should recognize the importance of unique human skills such as creativity, empathy, critical thinking and social qualifications, and therefore seek to combine them with the efficiency and accuracy of machines [ELH 21]. In principle, the concept does not seek human replacement with machines in repetitive tasks as a competitive advantage. This concept points closer toward cooperation between humans and machines, harnessing the best of each.

The transition from i4.0 to i5.0 would have to be done by evaluating the nature of the transformation of jobs, future professions and reduced skill gaps in order to address possible unemployment effects (especially the derivatives of technological unemployment) and promote industrial competitiveness and innovation by simultaneously reinforcing inclusion [CAN 23b].

The most recent commitment to i5.0, especially made by the European Commission, includes an interest in “responsible innovation”. This commitment “not only or mainly aims to increase cost efficiency or maximize profit, but also increases prosperity for all those involved: investors, workers, consumers, society and environmental environment” [BRE 21].

In effect, industries can play an active role in providing solutions to society’s challenges, including resource preservation, climate change and social stability. But, if the approach of i4.0, or Industry of the Future, has benefits for the industry, its development in the “anthropocentric” sense allows for advantages benefiting both workers and society [KRI 21]. Therefore, i5.0 should empower...

Produkt-Details

• Erscheint lt. Verlag: 21.4.2025
• Reihe/Serie: ISTE Invoiced
• Sprache: englisch
• Themenwelt: Technik ► Bauwesen
• Themenwelt: Technik ► Elektrotechnik / Energietechnik
• Schlagworte: connectivity • Digitalization • Efficiency • Industrial Processes • industrial production • Industry 4.0 • Industry 6.0 • Productivity • technological evolution
• ISBN-10: 1-394-37276-0 / 1394372760
• ISBN-13: 978-1-394-37276-8 / 9781394372768