Maturity Models for Industry 4.

0 in Developing Countries: A Conceptual

Framework Focusing on the Animal Feed Industry
Libório de Oliveira Júnior 1, Gilson Adamczuk Oliveira 2, Marcelo Gonçalves Trentin 3,
Leanne Chung 4, and Kim Hua Tan 5
1
Industrial and Systems Engineering, Federal University of Technology – Paraná, Via do Conhecimento, Km 1,
Pato Branco 85503-390, Brazil
libajunior@gmail.com
2
Industrial and Systems Engineering, Federal University of Technology – Paraná, Via do Conhecimento, Km 1,
Pato Branco 85503-390, Brazil
gilson@utfpr.edu.br
3
Industrial and Systems Engineering, Federal University of Technology – Paraná, Via do Conhecimento, Km 1,
Pato Branco 85503-390, Brazil
marcelo@utfpr.edu.br
4
Management, employment and organisation, Cardiff Business School – S22, Aberconway Building, Colum
Road, Cathays, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, United Kingdom
chungl1@cardiff.ac.uk
5
Operations Management and Information Systems, Nottingham University Business School – Jubilee Campus,
Nottingham NG8 1BB, United Kingdom
Kim.Tan@nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract
Frequent changes in the economic, social, environmental and technological scenarios impose on industries the
creation of physical and virtual structures that allow close cooperation and rapid adaptation throughout the entire
life cycle of their products, from innovation and development to production and distribution. This work presents
a conceptual framework, built from a systematic literature review, to evaluate the maturity in industries of the
developed countries concerning their insertion in a redistributed manufacturing environment – RDM (Industry
4.0). This framework must be confronted with the reality faced by developing countries, where it is supposed
that there are greater difficulties and restrictions when compared to the developed countries scenario, for
insertion in the new organizational paradigm. The presented framework has seven dimensions, divided into the
following aspects: Technology (dimensions: Information Technologies, Data Management, and the Internet of
Things), Organization (dimensions: Organizational Alignment and Process Transformation), and Personnel
(dimensions: Information and Communication Technology Competence and Opening to New Technologies).
The research involves an ongoing case study conducted at an animal feed industrial plant in Latin America
(Brazil). Preliminary analysis reveals a company with some significant technological advances such as
reasonable vertical integration, extensive use of sensors in the production line, and cloud computing. In the other
two aspects, the company shows potential, but it is in incipient stages of development.
Keywords: Redistributed manufacturing, RDM, Industry 4.0, Developing countries, Latin America, Animal feed.

1. Introduction
Industrial organizations are continuously challenging the changes demanded by economic,
social, environmental and technological scenarios. Such changes require these companies to
adopt new strategies to improve quality in their processes and throughout their value chain.
To this end, the industry of the future will need to create physical and virtual structures that
enable close co-operation and rapid adaptation throughout the lifecycle, from innovation to
production and distribution (Gligor and Holcomb 2012).
From this perspective, the best practice is to increase efficiency concerning manufacturing
processes. However, advances in the effectiveness of the production process occur
individually rather than occurring throughout the production chain (Schumacher, Erol, and
Sihn 2016). Advances such as the use of robotics or the use of lasers applied to the
manufacturing level, use of nanomaterials, use of carbon fibre or biomaterials, and
implementation of the Lean Management approach are, for example, advances that lead to
significant gains. However, they are isolated benefits when the efficiency of the process is
observed.
Significant gains in efficiency are obtained through digital integration and intelligent
manufacturing processes. However, this integration must occur horizontally and vertically in
organizations, involving all participants in the production chain. Recent concepts such as the
Internet of Things, Industrial Internet, Smart Manufacturing, and Cloud-Based Manufacturing
are part of these integrations. These elements are leading to a new industrial revolution
Industry 4.0 or Redistributed Manufacturing (Lanza, Haefner, and Kraemer 2015).
The complexity of this new model requires that companies and their processes are mature
enough for this paradigm shift, thus ensuring the efficiency needed to create a value chain.
This proposal of efficiency in all the production chain, promoted by Industry 4.0, demands a
higher complexity and maturity in the processes of manufacture. Besides, because of the
acquisition of the technology involved and the impact that this can cause on the business
model, it becomes noticeably challenging to implement in small and medium-sized
enterprises (Jäger et al. 2016).
The purpose of this paper is to investigate maturity models of the Industry 4.0 domain, also
identifying the most suitable model for developing countries. This model was used to evaluate
the maturity level of a medium-sized animal feed plant in southern Brazil, as well as propose
actions necessary to align strategies and business operations for this new approach.

2. Maturity Models for Industry 4.0

Referring to the maturity of an organizational system, it is understood that there is an increase
in its capacity over time (Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016). Maturity models are commonly
used as an instrument to conceptualize and measure the maturity of an organization or process
regarding a determined aspect. Maturity models are popular tools, used for example to
classify the capabilities of organizations and select appropriate actions to bring them to a
higher maturity level (Kohlegger, Maier, and Thalmann 2009).
In the field of production, relevant maturity models are presented, such as the energy
management maturity model for the sustainable manufacturing process (Ngai et al. 2013), the
maturity model to support the design and manufacture of ecological products (Pigosso,
Rozenfeld, and McAloone 2013), and the maturity model for lean manufacturing (Ali
Maasouman and Demirli 2015). In the Industry 4.0 domain, as shown in Table 1, the
following maturity models are available:

MODEL SOURCE TITLE DESCRIPTION

(Ganzarain and Three-Stage Three-stage process model with a five-level
Errasti 2016) Maturity Model maturity scale. This model, specific to SMEs,
M1 allows companies to identify new business
opportunities within the scope of Industry
4.0.
(Schumacher, Industry 4.0 Model with nine dimensions and 62 items to
Erol, and Sihn Maturity Model evaluate maturity concerning Industry 4.0. It
2016) uses the Likert scale to determine the level of
maturity in each aspect. The model was
developed using a multi-method approach,
M2 including a systematic review of the
literature, conceptual modelling and
qualitative and quantitative methods for
empirical validation. This validation occurred
in a company with approximately 400
employees.
(Tonelli et al. MVMM – The model contains five steps: value map,
M3
2016) Manufacturing maturity model, gap and process analysis, the

2
 Value definition of areas of validation and
Modelling improvement. This model also presents a
Methodology route of interventions that determine which
activities need to be improved. The model
uses a structured approach to disseminate the
strengths/weaknesses, goals, objectives and
prospects of the business. The overall goal is
to have a clear view of the company at both
strategic and operational levels.
(Jæger and IoT Model with eight levels of maturity, the first
Halse 2017) Technological level being considered Industry 3.0 and the
Maturity Model last level Industry 4.0. The model was
M4 applied in four large companies where three
of these companies had a score
corresponding to level three of maturity,
while the fourth reached level four.
(De Carolis et DREAMY – The model uses five dimensions: design and
al. 2017) Digital engineering, production management, quality
Readiness management, maintenance management, and
Assessment logistics management. It addresses maturity
M5
Maturity Model evaluation to identify the criticalities in the
implementation of the digital transformation
and subsequently drives the improvement of
the whole system.
(Kravčík, ADAPTION – The model includes evaluation guidelines for
Ullrich, and Migration to the the dimensions of technology, organization,
Igel 2017) Cyber-physical and people (T-O-P). There is no detailed
Production information concerning the classification of
System maturity, but the authors describe the model
M6
as a tool that will help companies migrate to
Cyber-Physical Production Systems by
supporting awareness and reflection in
organizations on their current status and
goals related to Industry 4.0.
(Leyh et al. SIMMI 4.0 – This model involves four dimensions:
2017) System vertical integration, horizontal integration,
Integration digital product development, and cross-
Maturity Model sectional technology criteria. The evaluation
Industry 4.0 of these aspects determines the level of
M7
maturity of the organization, which has five
stages: basic digitization level, cross-
departmental digitization, horizontal and
vertical digitization, full digitization, and
optimized full digitization.
(Gökalp, Industry 4.0- The model adopts five dimensions: asset
Şener, and MM management, data governance, application
Eren 2017) management, process transformation, and
M8
organizational alignment. The model is
driven using a step-by-step that allows
determination of one of the six capacity

3
 levels: incomplete, performed, managed,
established, predictable, and optimizing.
Table 1. Maturity Models for Industry 4.0

In general, all models (Table 1) use dimensions such as criteria and scales to determine the
fitness level in each aspect regarding adherence to Industry 4.0. Based on the assumptions of
each model, we highlight four actions in the maturity evaluation:
- Identification of business opportunities (M1): a model may help to investigate
opportunities for business diversification within the scope of Industry 4.0.
- Technologies definition (M4 and M6): a model can help in choosing the technologies that
will be selected. While M4 is limited to IoT and all its efforts are infrastructure-oriented,
M6 considers the organization's objectives and human resources capacity.
- Proposals for improvements aimed at adherence to Industry 4.0: M3 and M5 allow, in
addition to measuring the level of maturity of an organization, construction of an
intervention roadmap that helps to determine which activities need to be improved. Both
models are concerned with identifying the criticalities in the implementation of digital
transformation and subsequently driving the improvement of the whole system. In both
studies, it is possible to determine how the entire process should be conducted, as well as
the guidelines used to measure the organization's maturity level.
- Identification of the maturity level: models M2, M7, and M8 are presented as empirically-
based models and constructed over systematic literature reviews. M2 evaluates 62 items,
distributed in nine dimensions; it was versatile for use in different types of organizations.
From the maturity assessed models, M2 presents the higher number of citations in the
Scopus database (7 citations). M7, the second most cited (4 citations), uses five
dimensions to determine the maturity level. The M8 model is quite close to M2 and (based
on similar guidelines). Table 2 shows the models identified by the authors of M8, not
indexed in the Scopus database, designed by consulting firms (M8.be and M8.c),
foundations (M8.a) and a private company which provides products for other industries
(M8.d).

MODEL SOURCE MODEL MATURITY DIMENSIONS

RESEARCH LEVELS
NAME
M8.a (Lichtblau et al. IMPULS – Six maturity Six dimensions
2015) Industry 4.0 levels (Strategy &
readiness (Outsiders; Organization,
Beginner; Smart Factory,
Intermediate; Smart Operations,
Experienced; Smart Products,
Expert; Top Data-driven
performers) Services, and
Employees)
M8.b (Lanza et al. Empowered No No information
2016) and information provided
implementatio provided
n strategy for
Industry 4.0
M8.c (Pricewaterhous Industry Three Six dimensions
eCoopers 2016) 4.0/digital maturity (Business
operations levels Models; Product

4
 self- (Vertical & Service;
assessment Integrator; Portfolio Market
Horizontal & Customer
Collaborator;
Access; Value
Digital Chains &
Champion) Processes; IT
Architecture;
Compliance,
Legal, Risk,
Security & Tax;
Organization &
Culture)
M8.d (Rockwellautom The connected Five maturity Four dimensions
ation 2014) enterprise stages related to
maturity model (Assessment; technological
Secure and readiness. As
upgraded stated in
network (Schumacher,
controls; Erol, and Sihn
Defined and 2016), no further
organized information is
working data provided related
capital to aspect
(WDC); dimensions and
Analytics; the creation
Collaboration process of them
)
Table 2. Maturity models not indexed by Scopus (Gökalp, Şener, and Eren 2017; Schumacher,
Erol, and Sihn 2016).

Among models of Table 2, only M8.a has a scientific basis, detailing the dimensions and
evaluation approach. Of all models (Tables 1 and 2), only M1 is dedicated to SMEs. Our
paper proposes a maturity model inspired by Table 1, adapted for SMEs in developing
countries. Unlike developed nations, which have R & D in 90% of their industries (von
Zedtwitz and Gassmann 2002), the industries of developing countries, specifically Brazilian
companies, are characterized by lack of integrated processes for customized production and
difficulty in developing products (ABC Studio 2017). In Brazil, only 16.7% of SMEs invest in
R & D with 3% to 5% of their revenues and 31.7% from 1% to 3% (Lobo 2015). Investing in
innovation and education is one of the leading ways to boost Brazilian industry, including
increasing understanding of digitalization and Industry 4.0 (Estúdio ABC 2017).

3. Methodology Design
This work has three stages: Systematic Review of Literature, Development of Maturity Model,
and Tests and Adjustments. The Systematic Literature Review started with the definition of
keywords, i.e. the search terms. Using the Scopus database, these keywords were: "Industry
4.0" and "Maturity Model", "Smart manufacturing" and "Maturity Model", "Re-distributed
Manufacture" and "Maturity Model". In the searches for these combinations, independently of
the year of publication, 18 articles were found and, as part of the first filter, we selected
papers by examining their keywords, titles, and abstracts. The second was conducted
considering the relevance. Of these, only eight studies remained (Table 1). As a result of a

5
detailed analysis, after the complete reading, four items relating to maturity of Industry 4.0
(Table 2) were added. Section 2 presents the content analysis of this portfolio. Figure 1
outlines the research design.

Figure 1. Research Design.

The next step is the Maturity Model Development. Regarding the complexity of this new
paradigm and the requirements that Industry 4.0 imposes on organizations, they affect both
technological assets and organizational processes. Consequently, the qualifications of
employees will also have an impact, with the requirement of new job profiles and skills.
Therefore, we consider in the model the general aspects Technology, Organization and
Personnel proposed by (Kravčík, Ullrich, and Igel 2017).
The next step encompasses the model dimensions, which have support from (Gökalp, Şener,
and Eren 2017) and (Schumacher, Erol, and Sihn 2016). We chose them once they were
established under the premise that the impacts of Industry 4.0 do not only affect the Cyber-
physical Production System. It also influences organizational processes and IT skills and other
essential human resource requirements. Thus, our model (Figure 2) presents the dimensions in
the outer ring, classified according to the three general aspects established, represented by the
central circle:
- Technology: Information Technologies, Data Management, and Internet of Things;
- Organization: Organizational Alignment and Process Transformation;
- Personnel: Information and Communication Technology (ICT Competence) and Opening to
New Technologies.
We decided to divide the maturity into six levels, also inspired by (Gökalp, Şener, and Eren
2017). They use a step-by-step method to achieve the benefits that reduce investment and
implementation risks for organizations, which we considered adequate for SMEs. This
classification has capacity stages (maturity levels), as follows:
- Level 0 – Incomplete: preliminary practices are partially achieved or non-existent. The
organization focuses only on core operations, such as requirements analysis, procurement,
production, and sales.
- Level 1 – Performed: the transformation has started and there is already understanding about
Industry 4.0.
- Level 2 – Managed: the set of data related to each operation was defined and started to be
collected but not integrated into the different functionalities of the operations.
- Level 3 – Established: the core business activities, value-added operations are well defined,
and the qualifications of processes and operations are consistent with the corresponding
standardization.
- Level 4 – Predictable: it has integration between the production chain, but there could be a
real-time exchange of information about the products and the production process. With this, it
would be possible to increase the level of detail and quality in distributed manufacturing
optimization.
- Level 5 – Optimizing: engineering integration and product/production lifecycle have been
achieved to enable the sharing of low-effort knowledge and synchronization between product

6
and service development and manufacturing environments. The organization is entirely
adherent to Industry 4.0.

Information
Technologies
Data Internet
Management of Things

TECHNOLOGY

Figure 4. Maturity Framework for Industry 4.0

Finally, the model is passing through Testing and Adjustments in an SME, an animal feed
producer. This stage begins with a brief contextualization of the current scenario of feed
production in Brazil, followed by a characterization of the company to be investigated. We
opted for a medium-sized industry that was prominent in its area of operation, with its
consolidated brand (recognized in the market that operates) and used technology, both in
information systems to support the company's processes and to be an automated factory in
most of its production process. Another decisive factor for unit analysis option is the broad
access to their data, as one of the authors works as its IT manager.
This research is a longitudinal study, and the construction of the model is not complete. The
exogenous factors (outside inputs in Figure 2) affecting SMEs in developing countries, as
well as the technology, organization and personnel aspects, have yet to be investigated more
rigorously. It is necessary to aggregate this final ingredient (SMES of Developing Countries)
in the model and to study how they can influence the maturity. The characteristics of these
companies are different from the German SMEs, for example, known as "Mittlestand",
recognized as the most innovative in Europe (Pereshybkina et al. 2017). For this reason, we

7
present our model (Figure 2) as a framework. Thus, the following section presents a
preliminary analysis of the company studied, from the IT manager point of view, in the three
aspects of this framework: Technology, Organization, and Personnel.

4. Brazilian Animal Feed Industry: the Case of Anhambi Company

Brazil produced 68.9 million tons of animal feed in 2016, behind China and the US, which
provided 187.2 million and 169.69 million tons, respectively. The third position in the
production of animal feed guaranteed for Brazil the title of largest producer of animal feed in
Latin America. The Brazilian production of animal feed serves the markets of poultry, swine
breeding, cattle breeding, dogs and cats (pets) and aquaculture. In the first half of 2016,
Brazilian feed production was 19.4 million tons of feed for poultry, 7.95 million tons for pig
farming, 3.83 million tons for cattle, 1.32 million tons for dogs and cats and 0.57 million
tonnes for aquaculture. In 2017, there was a decrease in production during this same period,
except for poultry that did not change. The numbers for 2017 were: 7.7 million tonnes for pig
farming, 3.65 million tonnes for cattle breeding, 1.3 million tonnes for the pets market and
0.54 million tonnes for aquaculture (Alltech 2017).
The reduction in the price of some inputs, such as corn and soybean meal, still did not lead to
a decrease in feed production. This decline was due to the negative impacts caused by the bad
reputation of Brazilian meat in the middle of March 2017. In the poultry feed industry, the
amount produced was 16.5 million tons, a decline of 1.7% concerning the previous year.
The "weak flesh" operation of the Brazilian federal police had a direct impact on demand for
the pork market, which declined by 3.3% and beef cattle, which fell by nearly 8% in the first
half. This decrease was lower in feed production for dairy cattle, as it fell 3.4% compared to
the previous year.
Production of rations for the pets market saw a very modest fall of 1.6%. However, this was
provoked by the economic crisis that the country has been facing. The aquaculture market has
reduced feed production by 5%, but the fall is more related to the sanitary legislation used in
the northern region of the country, as well as the low temperatures recorded in the Southeast
region that had an impact on the production of fish feed. The state of Paraná is the second
largest producer of fish feed in Brazil, producing 69.2 thousand tons in 2016 (Portal Brasil
2017). The company studied, Anhambi Alimentos, located southwest of Paraná, had a 19.5%
increase in fish feed production, totalling approximately 11 thousand tons, representing 16%
of state production and 2% of the national market.

4.1 Technology
Production of ration for the market of pets had a very modest fall of 1.6%. However, this was
provoked by the economic crisis that the country has been facing. The aquaculture market has
reduced feed production by 5%, but the fall is more related to the sanitary legislation used in
the northern region of the country, as well as the low temperatures recorded in the Southeast
region that had an impact on the production of fish feed. The state of Paraná is the second
largest producer of fish feed in Brazil, producing 69.2 thousand tons of feed in 2016 (Portal
Brasil 2017). The company studied, Anhambi Alimentos, located southwest of Paraná, had a
19.5% increase in fish feed production, totalling approximately 11 thousand tons of fish feed,
representing 16% of state production and 2% of the national market.
Anhambi Alimentos is an SME which has been producing food for 30 years and has 200
employees. Located in the interior of the state, the cost of technology tends to be higher and,
therefore, investments in R&D are also limited, reaching around 5%. Despite this limitation,
from an IT infrastructure perspective, the company uses an ERP system that adheres to more
than 70% of processes and vertical integration, occurring across sectors across a company's
hierarchical levels, is present at all levels of Anhambi. However, regarding horizontal
integration, which occurs along the supply chain, the company is in an incomplete stage, since

8
there is only integration in the production of feed for cattle breeding. In this case, both the
sending of raw material shipping needs and the production register are already automated.
One of the disruptive concepts of Industry 4.0 is the IoT. The company uses sensors
throughout the production line, such as: weighing sensors, level sensors, inductive sensors for
detection of metal parts next to the feed, flow sensors, energy consumption sensors,
temperature sensors and accumulation sensors, indicating ways to avoid mistakes in storage
(silage). These devices help factory operators in decision making. However, these sensors do
not communicate with each other and rely on human intervention when needed. The company
expects to implement the integration of these sensors in 2018. Thus, the company expects to
increase its efficiency, with lower consumption of energy and raw materials, and lower
emission of waste. This action also allows better security conditions, whether material, human
or information related to this process, reducing effort or human interference with
processes/machines.
Other technologies connected to Industry 4.0 are cloud computing and big data. In 2012, the
company started to invest in cloud computing, still little explored in Brazil. At the beginning
of 2015, 60% of the computer services used by the company were already on this platform.
By 2016, all computer services and servers were already using cloud computing. Currently,
there is only local infrastructure to communicate between local resources and services that are
working in the cloud.
Investing in cloud computing has promoted mobility because managers can get strategic
information from anywhere, needing only access to the internet. It made the business flexible
because it is possible to create a simulated systems environment identical to the real
conditions without having to invest in infrastructure. The company's earnings go beyond cost
reduction, as these actions have helped reduce energy consumption, corroborating sustainable
production.
However, with a cloud infrastructure, maintaining the security of the company's IT assets is a
challenge. The company is concerned with keeping adequate protection for the various types
of available IT systems. There are well-established policies and processes to ensure the
availability, confidentiality, and integrity of the data manipulated and generated by the
organization.
Concerning data management, the company uses several interconnected systems, sharing
structured data and collecting them for analysis in business intelligence tools. Although the
volume of data manipulated by the organization is large, its use does not classify it within the
concept of big data.
Given the above, in the technology aspect, the company could be preliminarily classified as
Level 2 – Managed. However, since it is not only this aspect that determines the level of
maturity, it is necessary to evaluate the elements related to organization and personnel.

4.2 Organization
However, with a cloud infrastructure, maintaining the security of the company's IT assets is a
challenge. The company is concerned with keeping adequate protection for the various types
of available IT systems. There are well-established policies and processes to ensure the
availability, confidentiality, and integrity of the data manipulated and generated by the
organization.
Anhambi is a family business. Companies of this nature have distinctive characteristics, such
as the influence exerted by the family that adds complexity to the models of the organizational
life cycle. Thus, the business maintenance vision may be different, depending on the family
profile during its development (Frezatti et al. 2017).
There is still resistance to the advantages of intelligent manufacturing suggested by Industry
4.0. This factor significantly affects the decision to invest and implement IT in some
industries. This is evident in the sectors where there is family management.

9
Therefore, to take advantage of the benefits that Industry 4.0 offers in designing smart
products, methods, and processes, the company needs to make changes in its business strategy,
in organizing the production of intelligent factories and in the use of IT resources. These
measures can accelerate overall plant productivity through increased communication and
efficiency, as well as maintaining quality by controlling the process (Tropia, Silva, and Dias
2017).
Since the set of IT skills and other essential human resource requirements for transformation
(addressed in subsection 4.3) are related to the organizational management of enterprises, this
dimension is considered a significant factor in assessing the level of maturity of the company.
Also, in a preliminary analysis, the level of maturity in the organization aspect is
"incomplete". Perhaps because of a cultural issue, the organization does not yet have a vision
of Industry 4.0 and its benefits.

4.3 Personnel
The new methods of production resulting from Industry 4.0 require qualified professionals.
The integration of diverse types of knowledge, characteristic of this mode of production, will
demand multidisciplinary teams with a high level of technical expertise and with the capacity
to interact in different areas.
Thus, regarding the information technology skills of employees, a good relationship between
employees and technology is observed. This is justified by the fact that they use information
systems and other technologies throughout their working day. However, having IT skills is
not a permanent condition. As technological changes usually drive the evolution of production
processes, the challenge in training these employees must be a continuous practice.
Anhambi is investing in training its employees. However, since Industry 4.0 is still incipient
in Brazil, these capabilities do not address the demands of this new paradigm. Therefore,
Industry 4.0 premises should be disseminated at all operational levels driving human
resources to the company's transition to digitalization.
Concerning the competency dimension, the employees seem to be at a "satisfied" stage.
However, we do not have the same perception on openness to new technologies dimension.
Changes in strategy, structure, process or even technology end up influencing the way the
employees perform their function, which we understand can be a source of resistance in
Anhambi.
In this new production model, workers must be more agile and open to change in the short
term, taking risks continuously with less consideration of formal procedures. In this sense, it
is natural that the workers subjected to the pressures caused by the flexibility present some
anxiety, because they do not know which paths to follow and if the risks assumed will be
compensated (Machado and Nicolodi 2015).

5. Conclusions
This article is a longitudinal study and is in its preliminary stages. The presented framework
needs to be deployed in a maturity evaluation model for Brazilian SMEs concerning Industry
4.0. Consequently, national companies will be able to establish strategies of action for the
improvement and alignment of their processes to the paradigm of Industry 4.0.
The presented framework has seven dimensions, divided into the aspects of Technology,
Organization, and Personnel. Preliminary analysis reveals a company with some significant
technological advances such as reasonable vertical integration, extensive use of sensors in the
production line, and cloud computing. In the other two aspects, the company shows potential,
but it is in incipient stages of development.

10
Acknowledgements
The authors express their sincere gratitude to the company Anhambi for the support and
unrestricted access to its facilities and data for the sequel of this research.

References
Ali Maasouman, Mohammad, and Kudret Demirli. 2015. “Assessment of Lean Maturity
Level in Manufacturing Cells.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 28 (3). Elsevier Ltd.: 1876–81.
doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.360.
Alltech. 2017. “Alltech Global Feed Survey.” https://go.alltech.com/alltech-feed-survey.
Brasil. 2017. “Produção de Peixes No Brasil Cresce Com Apoio de Pesquisas Da Embrapa —
Governo Do Brasil.” http://www.brasil.gov.br/economia-e-emprego/2017/01/producao-de-
peixes-no-brasil-cresce-com-apoio-de-pesquisas-da-embrapa.
Carolis, Anna De, Marco Macchi, Elisa Negri, and Sergio Terzi. 2017. A Maturity Model for
Assessing the Digital Readiness of Manufacturing Companies. IFIP Advances in
Information and Communication Technology. Vol. 513. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66923-6_2.
Estúdio ABC. 2016. “O Brasil Está Pronto Para a Indústria 4.0? | EXAME.” 16/05/2016.
https://exame.abril.com.br/tecnologia/o-brasil-esta-pronto-para-a-industria-4-0/.
Frezatti, Fábio, Diógenes De Souza Bido, Daniel Magalhães Mucci, and Franciele Beck. 2017.
“Estágios Do Ciclo de Vida E Perfil de Empresas Familiares Brasileiras.” Revista de
Administração de Empresas – RAE 57 (6): 601–19. doi:10.1590/s0034-759020170607.
Ganzarain, Jaione, and Nekane Errasti. 2016. “Three Stage Maturity Model in SME ’ S
towards Industry 4.0.” Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 9 (5): 1119–28.
doi:10.3926/jiem.2073.
Gligor, David M., and Mary C. Holcomb. 2012. “Understanding the Role of Logistics
Capabilities in Achieving Supply Chain Agility: A Systematic Literature Review.” Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 17 (4): 438–53.
doi:10.1108/13598541211246594.
Gökalp, Ebru, Umut Şener, and P. Erhan Eren. 2017. “Development of an Assessment Model
for Industry 4.0: Industry 4.0-MM.” In Communications in Computer and Information
Science, edited by Antonia Mas, Antoni Mesquida, Rory V O’Connor, Terry Rout, and
Alec Dorling, 770:128–42. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-
319-67383-7_10.
Jæger, Bjørn, and Lise Lillebrygfjeld Halse. 2017. “The IoT Technological Maturity
Assessment Scorecard: A Case Study of Norwegian Manufacturing Companies.” In IFIP
Advances in Information and Communication Technology, edited by Hermann Lödding,
Ralph Riedel, Klaus-Dieter Thoben, Gregor von Cieminski, and Dimitris Kiritsis,
513:143–50. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66923-6_17.
Jäger, Jens, Oliver Schöllhammer, Michael Lickefett, and Thomas Bauernhansl. 2016.
“Advanced Complexity Management Strategic Recommendations of Handling The
‘industrie 4.0’ Complexity for Small and Medium Enterprises.” Procedia CIRP 57.
Elsevier B.V.: 116–21. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.021.
Kohlegger, M., R. Maier, and S. Thalmann. 2009. “Understanding Maturity Models Results
of a Structured Content Analysis.” Proceedings of IKNOW ’09 and ISEMANTICS ’09, no.
September: 51–61. doi:hdl:10419/44444 [Handle].
Kravčík, Miloš, Carsten Ullrich, and Christoph Igel. 2017. “Supporting Awareness and
Reflection in Companies to Move towards Industry 4 . 0.” In 7th Workshop on Awareness
and Reflection in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1–6.
Lanza, Gisela, Benjamin Haefner, and Alexandra Kraemer. 2015. “Optimization of Selective
Assembly and Adaptive Manufacturing by Means of Cyber-Physical System Based
Matching.” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 64 (1). CIRP: 399–402.
doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2015.04.123.

11
Lanza, Gisela, Peter Nyhuis, Sarah Majid Ansari, Thorben Kuprat, and Christoph Liebrecht.
2016. “Befähigungs- Und Einführungsstrategien Für Industrie 4.0.” ZWF Zeitschrift Für
Wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb 111 (1–2). Hanser Verlag: 76–79. doi:10.3139/104.111462.
Leyh, Christian, Thomas Schäffer, Katja Bley, and Sven Forstenhäusler. 2017. “Assessing the
It and Software Landscapes of Industry 4.0-Enterprises: The Maturity Model SIMMI 4.0.”
In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, edited by Ewa Ziemba, 277:103–19.
Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53076-5_6.
Lichtblau, Karl, Volker Stich, Roman Bertenrath, Matthias Blum, Martin Bleider, Agnes
Millack, Katharina Schmitt, Edgar Schmitz, and Moritz Schröter. 2015. “Industrie 4.0-
Readiness.” Impuls-Stiftung Des VDMA, 0–77.
Lobo, Ana Paula. 2015. “Empresas Brasileiras Admitem Investir Pouco Na Inovação -
Convergência Digital - Inovação.”
http://www.convergenciadigital.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?UserActiveTemplate=
site&infoid=39579&sid=3.
Machado, Enio Rodrigues, and Elaine Nicolodi. 2015. “Mudanças No Mundo Do Trabalho E
Novas Exigências de Qualificação Dos Trabalhadores.” Revista Eletrônica de Educação
Da Faculdade Araguaia 7: 162–73.
Ngai, E.W.T, D.C.K. Chau, J.K.L. Poon, and C.K.M. To. 2013. “Energy and Utility
Management Maturity Model for Sustainable Manufacturing Process.” International
Journal of Production Economics 146 (2): 453–64. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.12.018.
Pereshybkina, Anna, Maria Eugenia, Castillo Conde, and Tom Kalyesubula. 2017. “How Will
the Industry 4 . 0 Transformations Affect SMEs in Germany by 2030 ?” https://opus.hs-
furtwangen.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/2467.
Pigosso, Daniela C.A., Henrique Rozenfeld, and Tim C. McAloone. 2013. “Ecodesign
Maturity Model: A Management Framework to Support Ecodesign Implementation into
Manufacturing Companies.” Journal of Cleaner Production 59. Elsevier Ltd: 160–73.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040.
PwC. 2017. “Industry 4.0 - Enabling Digital Operations Self Assessment.” https://i40-self-
assessment.pwc.de/i40/.
Rockwellautomation. 2014. “The Connected Enterprise Maturity Model.”
http://www.rockwellautomation.com/rockwellautomation/innovation/connected-
enterprise/maturity-model.page?
Schumacher, Andreas, Selim Erol, and Wilfried Sihn. 2016. “A Maturity Model for Assessing
Industry 4.0 Readiness and Maturity of Manufacturing Enterprises.” Procedia CIRP 52.
The Author(s): 161–66. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.040.
Tonelli, F., M. Demartini, A. Loleo, and C. Testa. 2016. “A Novel Methodology for
Manufacturing Firms Value Modeling and Mapping to Improve Operational Performance
in the Industry 4.0 Era.” Procedia CIRP 57. The Author(s): 122–27.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.022.
Tropia, Eduardo Célio Zacharias, Pedro Paulo Silva, and Ana Valéria Carneiro Dias. 2017.
“Indústria 4.0: Uma Caracterização Do Sistema De Produção.” XVII - ALTEC 2017 -
Congresso Latino Americano de Gestão Tecnológica, no. June: 0–14.
Zedtwitz, Maximilian von, and Oliver Gassmann. 2002. “Market versus Technology Drive in
R&D Internationalization: Four Different Patterns of Managing Research and
Development.” Research Policy 31 (4): 569–88. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00125-1.

12