A guideline to implement a CPS architecture in an SME

Figures & data

Figure 1. ISA-95 architecture (Jiang, 2017).

Table 1. Description of SME constraints.

Constraints	Description	References
Financial resources	Lack of financial resources to make investment.
Expertise	SMEs lack expertise in support functions and are unprepared to manage digital projects requiring multidisciplinary teams. In particular, there is a lack of leaders with appropriate skills and experience to manage a coherent schedule, define precise objectives and to set up steps and resources to make the project succeed.	(Moeuf et al., 2018; Najjari et al., 2021)
Technological culture and awareness	Technological culture and awareness are about the knowledge on industrial standards and Industry 4.0 tools and the understand of Industry 4.0 strategies and their importance. The involvement of shareholders is therefore necessary to increase their interactions and collaboration. However, some companies are afraid of involving their employees and changing their organizational structure.	(Kolla et al., 2019; Mittal et al., 2020; Müller et al., 2018; Prause, 2019; Stentoft et al., 2020)
Maturity at the beginning of the project	The maturity of large companies at the beginning of projects includes knowledge and awareness of the new technologies, while SMEs usually start at a level where the new technologies are seldom used or even unknown: the company’s computer networks are restricted by their bandwidth and security, and the information systems do not communicate with each other. At this stage, SMEs are not confident in launching an Industry 4.0 strategy.	(Mittal et al., 2018)
Technology complexity	Technology complexity is a constraint for SMEs and corresponds to the degree to which technologies are perceived as difficult to understand and use, and this is often negatively correlated with adoption. Therefore, there is a real need to simplify technology and the methods to overcome the constraints facing SMEs.	(Najjari et al., 2021; Prause, 2019)
Short-term strategy	Industry 4.0 projects have a strategic impact and should be included in the corporate strategy, but they are long-term projects, and SMEs usually have a short-term strategy.	(Moeuf et al., 2020)

Figure 2. 5C architecture (Lee et al., 2015).

Table 2. Complementarity between CPS 5C architecture and CPS organic architecture.

Functional layer	Organic layer
Connection (C1)	The physical resources (L1), network (L2) and cloud (L3) layers share the responsibilities of connecting data sources
Conversion (C2)	The cloud computing layer (L3) hosts the algorithms and computational logic, whether for individual states or policy decisions. Middleware technology allows computing capabilities to be embedded in data sources and to make the conversion (C2) on the network layer (L2) so as not to overload the bandwidth of the company’s networks.
Cyber (C3)	The centralization of information (C3) is at the layer of cloud computing (L3) that also includes the techniques of data valorization.
Cognition (C4)	Control terminal layer (L4)
Configuration (C5)	The connection achieved between the physical (L1), network (L2) and cloud computing (L3) levels includes monitoring and collection services as well as actuator control.

Figure 3. Illustration of control system typologies (Trentesaux, 2007).

Figure 4. 5C architecture based on standard (Ahmadi et al., 2017).

Table 3. Challenges to implement a CPS.

Challenges	Description	References
Cybersecurity	Cybersecurity concerns data accessibility and ownership as well as the risks of attacking the production infrastructure. With the expansion of networks, breakpoints grow and cybersecurity strategies must be developed to protect critical equipment. One of the prerequisites is ensuring that decisions and actions are made based on reliable and properly authenticated information. Cybersecurity techniques mainly include the cryptography of transmitted data, authentication of communicating entities, and message reliability checks to prevent data loss or modification during communications.	(Ghobakhloo, 2018; Horváth & Szabó, 2019; Pivoto et al., 2021; Sufian et al., 2019)
Organizational barriers	Companies generally experience a lack of understanding of Industry 4.0 technologies, conflicting interests between organizational units, and a fear of the unknown and of surveillance from employees. These barriers generate resistance to change, whether at the operator or manager level. Resistance to change can be associated with a lack of competency for the new tasks, responsibilities that create a fear of losing the position, or satisfaction with the current systems and technology solution.	(Horváth & Szabó, 2019; Prause, 2019)

Figure 5. Guideline to implement a CPS architecture in SME.

Figure 6. CPS architecture.

Figure 7. Example of class creation from an excel file.

Figure 8. Cloud API schema.

Figure 9. Illustration of source types and connection solutions.

Figure 10. SME system mapping.

Figure 11. SME maturity with (Reiner Anderl et al., 2016) maturity model.

Figure 12. SME architecture at the beginning of the project.

Figure 13. Screenshots of web interfaces.

Jiang, J.-R. (2017). An improved cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0 smart factories. International Conference on Applied System Innovation (ICASI), Sapporo, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1109/icasi.2017.7988589

 Google Scholar

Moeuf, A., Pellerin, R., Lamouri, S., Tamayo-Giraldo, S., & Barbaray, R. (2018). The industrial management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Production Research, 56(3), 1118–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1372647

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Najjari, H., Seitz, M., Trunzer, E., & Vogel-Heuser, B. (2021). Cyber-physical production systems for SMEs-A generic multi agent based architecture and case study. 4th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems (ICPS), Victoria, BC, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1109/icps49255.2021.9468232

 Google Scholar

Kolla, S., Minufekr, M., & Plapper, P. (2019). Deriving essential components of lean and industry 4.0 assessment model for manufacturing SMEs. Procedia CIRP, 81, 753–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.189

 Google Scholar

Mittal, S., Khan, M. A., Purohit, J. K., Menon, K., Romero, D., & Wuest, T. (2020). A smart manufacturing adoption framework for SMEs. International Journal of Production Research, 58(5), 1555–1573. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1661540

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Müller, J. M., Buliga, O., & Voigt, K.-I. (2018). Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 132, 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prause, M. (2019). Challenges of industry 4.0 technology adoption for SMEs: The case of Japan. Sustainability, 11(20), 5807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205807

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stentoft, J., Adsbøll Wickstrøm, K., Philipsen, K., & Haug, A. (2020). Drivers and barriers for Industry 4.0 readiness and practice: Empirical evidence from small and medium-sized manufacturers. Production Planning & Control, 32(10), 811–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1768318

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mittal, S., Khan, M. A., Romero, D., & Wuest, T. (2018). A critical review of smart manufacturing & Industry 4.0 maturity models: Implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 49, 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.10.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moeuf, A., Lamouri, S., Pellerin, R., Tamayo-Giraldo, S., Tobon-Valencia, E., & Eburdy, R. (2020). Identification of critical success factors, risks and opportunities of industry 4.0 in SMEs. International Journal of Production Research, 58(5), 1384–1400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1636323

 Web of Science ®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, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001

 Google Scholar

Trentesaux, D. (2007). Les systèmes de pilotage hétérarchiques : innovations réelles ou modèles stériles? Journal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés (JESA), 41(9–10), 1165–1202. https://doi.org/10.3166/jesa.41.1165-1202

 Google Scholar

Ahmadi, A., Cherifi, C., Cheutet, V., & Ouzrout, Y. (2017). A review of CPS 5 components architecture for manufacturing based on standards. 11th International Conference on Software, Knowledge, Information Management and Applications (SKIMA) Sri Lanka, Colombo.

 Google Scholar

Ghobakhloo, M. (2018). The future of manufacturing industry: A strategic roadmap toward industry 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(6), 910–936. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-02-2018-0057

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Horváth, D., & Szabó, R. Z. (2019). Driving forces and barriers of industry 4.0: Do multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 146, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pivoto, D. G. S., De Almeida, L. F. F., Da Rosa Righi, R., Rodrigues, J. J. P. C., Lugli, A. B., & Alberti, A. M. (2021). Cyber-physical systems architectures for industrial internet of things applications in Industry 4.0: A literature review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 58, 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.11.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sufian, A. T., Abdullah, B. M., Ateeq, M., Wah, R., & Clements, D. (2019). A roadmap towards the smart factory. 12th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE), Kazan, Russia. https://doi.org/10.1109/dese.2019.00182

 Google Scholar

Reiner Anderl, A. P., Wang, Y., Fleischer, J., Dosch, S., Klee, B., & Bauer, J. (2016). Guideline industrie 4.0 – Guiding principles for the implementation of industrie 4.0 in small and medium sized businesses. VDMA Verlag GMbh.

 Google Scholar