Content uploaded by Tatiana Salimova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tatiana Salimova on Aug 24, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
483 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
THE PERSPECTIVE OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT IN THE ERA OF INDUSTRY 4.0
Tatiana Salimova1*, Natalia Vatolkina2, Vasily Makolov3, Natalia Anikina4
1*Dean of Economic Department, Head of Quality Management Chair, Doctor of Economics, Professor, National
Research Mordovia State University, Saransk, Russian Federation; 2Associate Professor of Management Chair,
Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow, Russian Federation; 3Associate Professor of Organizational
Development Chair of Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russian Federation; 4Associate Professor of
Chair of Statistics, Econometrics and Information Technologies in Management, National Research Mordovia
State University, Saransk, Russian Federation.
Email: 1*salimova.tatiana67@mail.ru, 2vatolkina71@bk.ru, 3vasily.makolov@bk.ru, 4anikina_natalia@inbox.ru
Article History: Received on 27th July 2020, Revised on 15th August 2020, Published on 17th August 2020
Abstract
Purpose of the study: This study tried to examine the level of awareness and vision of prospects for the development of
quality management and its corresponding systems in the era of transition to the technologies and principles of Industry
4.0 among quality management professionals of Russian companies.
Methodology: The study is based on the survey conducted in April - May 2019 among the expert community in the field
of quality management. A total of 50 experts from Russian industrial and service companies participated in the survey.
The survey was organized in accordance with the stages of 'the Deming Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. The data analyzed by
using the Spearman correlation to determine the relationship between the understanding of current priority and
anticipation of future changes in quality management concepts, principles, and tools in the era of Industry 4.0.
Main Findings: The survey results show how innovative quality management methods can be applied practically with
relevance to 4th industrial revolution technologies. The authors conclude that the changes in the core concepts of quality
management are necessary for the Industry 4.0 era and offer a 4.0 quality definition through the revision of quality
management principles.
Applications of the study: The finding of this study is useful for the development of a digital transformation strategy of
the business companies by showing the correlation between quality management principles awareness and implementation
of digital tools. The study shows the necessity to offer interdisciplinary training for quality management professional and
IT specialists on the digital transformation of quality management.
Novelty/Originality of the study: The originality is in the design of the survey that covered issues that haven't been
studied in correlation with each other before the influence of Industry 4.0 tools and key provisions on quality management
and development strategy of the company. In the survey, the perception of new quality management principles was
investigated for the first time.
Keywords: Industry 4.0, Quality Management, Business Model, Industrial Revolution, Digital Transformation.
INTRODUCTION
The radical and dynamic technological changes that take place in day-to-day life impact every person, enterprise, and
organization resulting in the emergence of new business models and strategies. According to the President of World
Economic Forum (WEF) Schwab (2017), 'the nature of such changes is fundamental, which has not yet known in world
history — now we are witnessing the era of both great opportunities and potential dangers'. Artificial Intelligence, Internet
of Things (IoT), robotics, autonomous vehicles, simulation and augmented reality, cloud technologies, bioengineering and
new materials, big data analytics, unlimited internet access and information technologies testify the onset and transition to
fourth industrial revolution i.e., 'Industry 4.0' and the digital transformation of socio-economic processes (Batkovskiy et
al., 2019; Raharja et al., 2019). The fourth industrial revolution connects the material world with the virtual resulting in
the origin of novel cyber-physical complexes that form a digital ecosystem. Moore (2011) opined that with the advent of
the Internet, various sectors such as retail, communications, music, entertainment, and the news got revolutionized.
Health, education, public administration, transport and communications industries are experiencing disruptive
technologies that transform the characteristics of goods and services, organizational processes, management practices,
consumer expectations and business models, which require to their review their approaches so as to ensure the
competitiveness and sustainable development of modern organizations (Hilkevics & Semakina, 2019; Tyapukhin, 2013;
Malitskaya, 2014; Mahrinasari, 2019). Before the WEF-2018 report, several reports were published stating the unjustified
expectations of the economic impact of 'Industry 4.0' ("The backstage of Davos," 2018). For example, direct
measurements of the multifactor productivity in both the United States and the United Kingdom have shown that the
productivity has grown only a 0.3 % while the previous technological revolutions increased the productivity by 2% per
year. It infers that the new technologies do not provide a sufficient level of value for goods and services both in terms of
consumption as well as cost.
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
484 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
The World Bank introduced the concept of digital business to create new business models by bridging the gap between
digital and physical worlds by bringing people, businesses and things together ("The backstage of Davos," 2018). At the
same time, organizations which rely on data captured by them are transformed into organizations which are guided by
their own data. According to Scalabre (n.d.), chief partner and managing director of Boston Consulting Group (BCG), the
fourth industrial revolution is a transformation that allows the collection and analysis of machine data which results in
providing speed, flexibility and efficiency to the high-quality products at lower costs. This industrial revolution is set to
create conditions for increasing labor productivity, serve as a stimulus for economic growth, change the economy and the
profile of the labor force, and increase the competitiveness of companies and regions (Scalabre, n.d.; Vitik et al., 2016;
Brinza et al., 2015). Despite this, the governmental programs and strategies for the development and promotion of
digitalization of national economies and industrial sectors have already been developed and implemented in dozens of
countries across the globe. According to the official data published by the European Commission in the year 2017, there
were more than 30 national and regional initiatives on industrial digitalization only in the European Union. For example,
Germany, back in 2011, officially presented her national strategy called 'Industrie 4.0' as well as several other strategies
and initiatives of a similar profile and focus (Xu et al., 2018). In Russia, the program' Digital Economy of the Russian
Federation' was approved by the government order No. 1632-R by the Russian Federation dated July 28, 2017. The fourth
industrial revolution, although it is yet to have a significant impact on labor productivity on an international scale, it still
radically changed the nature of products and services, which no longer reflects the diversity of intangible value
propositions offered to the customer. As a result of the cumulative impact of the advanced Industry 4.0 technologies, there
are various servitization processes in progress with a change in value creation models. The WEF reports (World Economic
Forum, 2016, n.d.) suggest to use the concepts such as 'solution economy' and 'experience economy' which shift the focus
from the consumer properties of products and services to their ability in generating the benefits for the consumer, solve
their problems, offer a cognitive and emotional experience not only in the consumer market but also in the B2B
interactions too (World Economic Forum, 2016, n.d.).
'Industry 4.0' changes the content and correlation of various entities such as consumption, expectations, value, quality, and
consumer experience, which require the transformation of traditional views and approaches to quality management
(Akhmetova et al., 2019). Thus, in studying the socio-economic impacts of the fourth industrial revolution, one can
observe a combination of two trends: the emergence of a digital type of consumption and a digital type of production. As
shown in the literature (Alpackaya & Alpackiy, 2018; Novikova et al., 2016), these two trends are relevant to two main
approaches in the digital transformation on a national scale while the first is market approach, when businesses offer
consumers new digital products and services, thereby transforming their expectations whereas the second one is planned
approach, when the state stimulates and regulates the digital transformation of industries to increase the competitiveness
in both digital as well as traditional markets.
The purpose of the survey is to identify the level of awareness and vision of prospects for the development of quality
management and its corresponding systems, in the context of the transition of enterprises or organizations to the
technologies of Industry 4.0.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
The fourth industrial revolution is gradually taking over all spheres of life, so the "opportunities and dangers", according
to Schwab (2017), caused by the entry into this new era, are only now beginning to manifest. Before the WEF-2018,
several published reports stated the unjustified expectations of the economic impact of "Industry 4.0" ("The backstage of
Davos," 2018). For example, direct measurements of multifactor productivity in the United States and the United
Kingdom have shown that while previous technological revolutions increased productivity by 2% per year, at this stage,
productivity is seeing only a 0.3% growth. This means that new technologies do not provide a sufficient level of value for
goods and services in terms of consumption and costs. Nevertheless, governmental programs and strategies for the
development and promotion of digitalization of national economies and industrial sectors have already been created and
implemented in dozens of countries worldwide. Only the European Union, according to the official data from the
European Commission in 2017, has seen more than 30 national and regional initiatives on industrial digitalization. For
example, Germany officially presented a national strategy called Industrie 4.0, as well as several other strategies and
initiatives of a similar profile and focused back in 2011 (Xu et al., 2018). In Russia, the "Digital Economy of the Russian
Federation" program was approved by the order of the government of the Russian Federation with No. 1632-R on July 28,
2017.
The fourth industrial revolution, although it has not yet had a significant impact on labor productivity on an international
scale, has radically changed the nature of products and services and no longer reflects the diversity of intangible value
propositions offered to the customer. As a result of the cumulative impact of advanced Industry 4.0 technologies,
servitization processes and a change in value creation models have been observed. The WEF reports (World Economic
Forum, 2016, n.d.) allude to the concepts of "solution economy" and "experience economy," which shift the focus from
the consumer properties of products and services to their ability to generate benefits for the consumer, solve the
consumer's problems, and offer a cognitive and emotional experience—not only in the consumer market but also in B2B
interactions (World Economic Forum, 2016, n.d.). Thus, studying the fourth industrial revolution's socio-economic
impacts, we can observe a combination of two trends: the emergence of the digital form of consumption and a digital form
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
485 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
of production. As shown in work by Alpackaya and Alpackiy (2018), these two trends are relevant to two main
approaches to the digital transformation on the national scale: the market approach, when businesses offer consumers new
digital products and services, thereby transforming their expectations, and the planned approach, when the state stimulates
and regulates the digital transformation of industries to increase competitiveness in both digital and traditional markets.
The following features of the digital form of consumption are considered in works (Krubasik et al., n.d.; Ryynänen &
Hyyryläinen, 2018; Belk, 2013):
− The transition from the concept of "product ownership" to the concept of "access to products on demand." The essence
of the concept is the value of the product or service, unique for each individual consumer as a result of his or her
experience. Based on the research presented in work (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), it can be argued that an organization
does not have the opportunity to create such an experience and customer value in advance; it can only offer customers
the conditions for creating it and the subsequent formation of a value proposition.
− The Diffusion of shared and multi-homing consumption, with the simultaneous use of products from several
competitors. Digital products and digital solutions have a network effect: their value increases with the increasing
number of users.
− Hyper personalization of products. This means creating value together with the consumer at the time of a product's
use, in conjunction with other services and solutions, which leads to a new phenomenon: mass customization, based on
a combination of previously incongruous types of production (mass and individual).
− They were changing consumer properties of digital products and services, usually associated with the generation and
circulation of information, data, and knowledge, which lead to the transfer of qualitative and quantitative properties of
information to products and services. Diffusion of expectations. Across various sectors, so modern organizations
compete not only within one industry but also with leading digital service providers, forming consumer expectations
about the quality of life in general.
As part of the review of digital production trends in the era of the fourth industrial revolution, we study its distinctive
characteristics, the degree to which "Industry 4.0" technologies have penetrated different types of production and different
stages of the life cycle of products and services, as well as their impact on the production system (Xu et al., 2018;
Westerman et al., 2014; Yin et al., 2018; Shin et al., 2018; Závadská & Závadský, 2018; Kiel et al., 2017; Tishina et al.,
2017; Vlasov et al., 2018). Currently, information on the degree of integration of "Industry 4.0" technologies in industry
and services is being accumulated, and attempts to predict the further transformation of production and management
systems are being made. The concept of cyber-physical systems is being developed, as well (Xu et al., 2018). A model
was proposed by (Tarassov, 2019) to assess the digital maturity of the business on the basis of nine elements, which were
identified by a survey of 157 CEOs of companies with a turnover of at least $ 1 billion. They are grouped into three
transformation groups: consumer experience, operational processes, and business models (Westerman et al., 2014).
Akberdina et al. (2018) propose a model of the industry digitization process which consists of five stages—how and for
what the data are used. The five stages are as follows: primary information and communication digitization; electronic
data exchange with external partners; use of specialized software; production of information and communication
technologies and equipment; use of robots and sensors.
"Industry 4.0" changes the content and correlation of categories of consumption, expectations, value, quality, and
consumer experience, which requires the transformation of traditional views and approaches to quality management. The
paper (Krubasik et al., n.d.) presents the results of a survey of 50 leading experts in the field of quality and managers of
large industrial companies, in which 40 % of respondents noted that the standard methods of quality management
significantly reduced their efficiency. At the same time, 48 % of respondents indicated the increased importance of quality
management problems over the past 10 years.
Amid the transition to the technologies of "Industry 4.0," prospects for the development of quality management systems
(and quality management in general) are the subject of research by scientists and specialists representing various fields of
study. The analysis of these works showed that opportunities and challenges for quality management—which carries the
fourth industrial revolution—have already been identified (Kiel et al., 2017; Zaidin et al., 2018; Foidl & Felderer, 2016).
New conceptual approaches to the definition of quality have also been offered (LNS Research, 2017; Park et al., 2017),
and discussion surrounding the content of quality management principles in the digital age is underway (Park et al., 2017;
Sader et al., 2017). The transition from understanding total quality management as a functional area of management to the
recognition of quality management as a management paradigm—a basis of business strategy—has been completed
(Anupama, 2018; Dahlgaard-Park et al., 2018). In the papers (Zaidin et al., 2018; Foidl & Felderer, 2016), the
opportunities brought by Industry 4.0 are divided into three groups: strategy, operations, and environment, and people.
Quality improvement is part of operation management.
Rethinking the key concepts of quality management led to the fact that in 2017, B. Pederson introduced the concept of
"quality 4.0" (LNS Research, 2017), and Park et al. (2017) introduced the concept of "open quality". In the international
standard ISO 9000: 2015 "Quality management Systems. Fundamentals and Vocabulary," the concept of quality is related
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
486 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
to the satisfaction of the needs of stakeholders and is defined as the "degree to which a set of inherent characteristics of an
object fulfills requirements" (International Organization for Standardization, 2015). It should be stated that the
stakeholders theory, sustainable development and the quality management concept orients organization to identify its
stakeholders, understand their needs and manage the relevant relationships (Salimova, et al.2014). Quality 4.0 includes the
digitalization of quality management systems and conformity assessment, focusing not only on the application of
technology in the organization, but also on improving culture, collaboration, and leadership through the use of technology.
The content of the term "open quality" is associated with the implementation of a new quality strategy, when all quality of
any product or service is created, produced, promoted, and implemented on the basis of an open and transparent approach
for different stakeholder groups (Park et al., 2017; Eddelani et al., 2019; Yakhneeva et al., 2020). The definitions of
quality 4.0 and open quality reflect the development of two trends: digitalization of production and digitalization of
consumption. Integrating these interrelated phenomena, we propose to define quality 4.0 as the adaptive ability of an
object at all stages of the life cycle to meet the needs of a particular consumer on the basis of partnership with
stakeholders and digital management of the value chain (data-driven value chain management). At the same time, the
object is understood as a broad result of activity, including products, services, projects, and digital solutions. Adaptability
is regarded as a set of customized characteristics of the object, open to change in accordance with the requirements of a
particular consumer. In the context of mass customization, characteristics of products, services, and digital solutions must
be adaptive, not standard. "Embedded" quality is transformed into "customizable."
Considering the need for a radical change of management paradigm, instant response to changes in the business
environment, consumer demands, risks of destruction of traditional organization structures and value chains, as well as the
blurring of boundaries between traditional industries and other challenges of the fourth industrial revolution, the concept
of quality 4.0 reflects the total digitalization of all components of the organization's quality management system
(organizational management structure, processes, and documented information, resource management, etc.).
The research hypothesis is that the quality 4.0 concept focuses on the transition to a new quality level of management and
organizational activities through the introduction of technology. To test the hypothesis, we use the theoretical ideas about
the essence and principles of the Quality 4.0 concept and further verify it through an expert survey.
Park et al. (2017) presented the analysis of changes in the goals and strategies of quality management in the transition to
the fourth industrial revolution, which in 2018 was supplemented in the work of Salimova and Vatolkina (2018) with
analysis of changes in the definitions of quality and approaches to management (Table 1).
Table 1: Transformation of approaches to quality management
Industrial
Revolution
Operation
Strategy
Quality Concept
Quality
Management Goal
Approach to
Management
Quality
Management
Strategy
4.0
Mass
customization
and
personalized
production
system
The ability to
anticipate and meet
the needs of
customers, taking
into account the
interests of other
stakeholders
The anticipation of
expectations of
customers and other
stakeholders
Responsible
quality
management
Partnership
shared values,
accountability
3.0
Lean production
Quality as
requirement
conformity
Customer satisfaction
with the cost-
efficiency
Quality
Management
Innovation,
efficiency
2.0
Mass
production
Quality as a set of
product properties
Minimization of
defects
Quality assurance
Audit,
standardizatio
n
1.0
Factory
production
Quality as
synonymous of
excellence
Sorting of products
Quality control
Inspection
In the paper (Salimova & Vatolkina, 2018), quality 4.0 is based on eliminating the gap between the requirements of
consumers and the properties of products, which arises due to the need to adapt mass products to the individual needs of a
person or organization. The introduction of innovative methods of quality management should be accompanied by a
radical transformation in its paradigm and principles regarding the enterprise or organization. Since the 1990s, new
approaches in management have been emerging: talent management, value-based management, and sustainable
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
487 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
development management. However, they are still disintegrated, which makes it difficult to form a new management
paradigm that meets the challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. These challenges create prerequisites for rethinking
the principles of quality management (International Organization for Standardization, 2015). The paper (Sader et al.,
2017) summarizes the contributions of Industry 4.0 in the implementation of quality management principles, such as
improved responsiveness, high coordination among all levels of the organization, effective evaluation for results, active
dynamic interaction with market needs, instant re-configuration of production processes, rich information and analytics
dashboards, etc. Based on the literature review, we offer the transformation of quality management principles as
fundamental rules of doing business today (Table 2).
Table 2: Transformation of the principles of quality management in the transition to the technologies of Industry 4.0
Name
Characteristics
Shared Leadership
The transition from individual to team leadership, when the
responsibility for quality is distributed among all team members on the
basis of voluntary involvement
Talent Management
Use and development of talent in order to create value for all
stakeholders, which are the main object in personnel management
(serves as the basis for identifying and developing leaders and
implementing the principle of shared leadership)
Customers' Engagement in Value
Creation
Attracting consumers to actively participate in creating value as a full
member of the production system
Project management & networking
Moving from a value chain to a value network
Management of Data & Innovation
Real-time management decisions, flexibility, and adaptability of all data-
driven organization structures focus on continuous improvement
Capacity Building Through
Partnerships with Stakeholders
Organizational capacity building based on attracting value to an open
network of partners and stakeholders
Value-Based Management
The use of key values for the organization of universal values
Responsibility for a Sustainable
Future
Focus on sustainable development: economic, environmental and social
responsibility for the consequences of activities
METHODOLOGY
The importance and complexity of the problems with regards to the transformation of Quality Management Systems
(QMS) among Russian enterprises and organizations in the digital era prompted a survey to be conducted in April - May
2019 among the expert community in the field of quality management as a part of the current study. A total of 50 experts
participated in the survey representing enterprises and organizations of various industrial sectors (Table 3): heads of
quality services in Russian enterprises and organizations; experts in the field of QMS; heads of departments who create
and implement the organizational strategies. The regional sample of respondents included the representatives of the cities
of Moscow and St. Petersburg along with the constituent entities of the Russian Federation: the Republic of Mari-El, the
Republic of Mordovia, the Republic of Tatarstan, the Chuvash Republic, Krasnodar Territory, Izhevsk, Nizhny Novgorod,
Penza, Samara, Tver, and Ulyanovsk Regions.
Table 3: Distribution of the respondents by the scope of activity, %
Scope of Activity of
Total
%
Electrical Engineering
6
12
Food Industry
8
16
Agriculture
2
4
Construction
2
4
Military Industry
2
4
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
488 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
Automation of Industrial Enterprise
4
8
Cargo Transportation
3
6
Banking
8
16
Higher Education and Research
9
18
Consulting
6
12
Total
50
100
Source: Elaborated by Authors
The survey was conducted using the Google docs service. Big Large business was represented by 26% of experts followed
by medium business - 54% and 20% small business experts. The survey was organized in accordance with the stages of
'the Deming Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle' which was chosen based on its versatility and the possibility of application in
various industries and fields of activity including the conduct of this study (Deming, 1986). This allowed the authors to
clearly structure the goals and objectives of the study, plan and organize the study, monitor its implementation, and also
suggest recommendations from on the results obtained (Figure 1).
PLAN
Setting goals and objectives of the study; preparation
of a research program; expert selection and
communication
DO
Conducting an online survey of experts; expert advice
ACT
Bringing the results of the study to the attention of
experts for their use in practice
CHECK
Generalization and analysis of research results;
drawing conclusions
Figure 1: Stages of a study based on the Deming cycle
In the planning stage (PLAN), a goal was determined and specific tasks were formulated to assess the prospects for the
development of QMS in Industry 4.0 conditions. Based on the goals and objectives, a research program was conducted
with a questionnaire for respondents. Next, a group of experts was selected to participate in the survey, and negotiations
were held with them. When selecting the representatives of the expert community, one should be guided by the presence
of a QMS in place at the enterprise or organization, as well as the willingness of enterprises and organizations to make
changes that will cause the transition to the Industry 4.0 technologies. The developed questionnaire included 15 questions
that were conditionally divided into the following groups:
− Focus on the implementation of key provisions of Industry 4.0 in the current development strategy;
− The importance of quality management in implementing the development strategy,
− Practical application of innovative Quality Management Methods specific to the fourth industrial revolution;
− Transformation of the QMS, methods, and principles of quality management in the context of the transition to Industry
4.0 technologies;
− The impact of ongoing changes on organizational culture.
At the stage of the study (DO), the questionnaire was sent to the experts and consulted on how to fill it up. The
information was collected directly from the areas of the study. At the stage of analysis (CHECK), the results of the
questionnaire were summarized, systematized according to the selected groups of questions and individual questions, and
the obtained data were evaluated. In conclusion (ACT), the results of the questionnaire were brought to the attention of
experts in order to develop recommendations for their use in the transformation processes related to QMS and the
activities of the organization as a whole. It was supposed to receive feedback from the experts about how the results can
be used in the practical activities of enterprises and organizations that participated in the study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In the course of the study, the respondents were asked to characterize the degree of reflection in the current development
strategy of organizations that focus on key priorities of 'Industry 4.0'. 52% of respondents noted that the strategy
implemented in their organization is based on existing experience and technological structure and is not focused on new
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
489 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
technological challenges. A total of 44% respondents indicated that the key priorities of Industry 4.0 are reflected in the
current strategy whereas only 4% of the experts, representing military-industrial complex and banking sector enterprises,
noted that the strategy of their enterprises and organizations is based on the priorities and technologies of Industry 4.0.
The high importance of quality management as a key priority of the implemented development strategy was noted by 82%
of the respondents though 46% of them indicated that the provisions of quality management, despite the great importance
in ensuring competitiveness and sustainable development, are not reflected in the strategies implemented in their
organization. 32% of the respondents intend to step up activities in the field of quality management in a five-year
perspective, including the forthcoming challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. According to 26% of the experts, the
organizations that they represent are constantly enhancing the approaches in quality management. A majority of the
respondents (64%) agreed that, in the context of the transition to Industry 4.0 technologies, there is a growing importance
to solve the quality management problems. Though 20% of the representatives of organizations agreed with this
statement, they emphasized that they did not expect significant changes in quality management processes. The
interviewed experts identified the most significant trends (no more than three) that impact the practice of quality
management in enterprises or organizations (Table 4).
Table 4: The most significant trends affecting the quality management practice identified by the respondents
Trend
Respondents, %
Globalization of economy
64
Digitalization of the economy, increasing transparency of economic processes
54
The growing complexity of products/services
50
Focus on innovation
48
Shortening the life cycle of products on the market
32
The increasing importance of environmental issues
24
As can be seen from Table 4, the key trends that have a significant impact on the practice of quality management,
according to the interviewed experts, are globalization and digitalization of the economy, increasing transparency of
economic processes, the complexity of products and services, and focus on innovation. The composition of respondents in
terms of the level of formation of management systems remained interesting. Close to 46% of the enterprises and
organizations that participated in the survey implemented and certified QMS according to the requirements of the ISO
9001 standard of 2015 whereas 12% organizations had a certified integrated management system (mainly enterprises that
represent the food industry) whereas 6% were certified according to the requirements of the national standard GOST RV
15.002–2012, 'System for the development and production of products for the production of military equipment. Quality
Management Systems. General requirements'. In the rest, 16% were developing QMS while 18% do not have a formalized
QMS and 2% of the enterprises and organizations that participated in the survey comply with the provisions of the
international standard ISO 18295-1: 2017 'Customer contact centers - Part 1: Requirements for customer contact centers'.
The data presented confirm that the formation of QMS according to ISO 9001 standard remained the most popular and
attractive approach used by enterprises and organizations worldwide. According to the ISO survey 2017 (International
Organization for Standardization, 2017), the number of certified QMS in 2017 exceeded one million. The representatives
of the majority of organizations surveyed (62%) believe that the role played by QMS in fourth industrial revolution
conditions will increase, since the system is a mechanism to ensure total transparency and integration of processes,
including the processes of interaction with consumers and other groups of stakeholders on quality issues. The invariable
role played by QMS was indicated by 20% of respondents who believed that the system fulfills its role to the full whereas
12% noted that in fourth industrial revolution conditions, the development of QMS is not a priority and finally 6% of the
participants found it difficult to answer.
During the study, the participants were asked to provide their opinion in identifying the systems that make up quality
management and are fundamentally transformed in the first place according to the digitalization challenges. At the same
time, the expert was able to note down several such components (Table 5).
Table 5: Elements of a Quality Management System that will fundamentally transform in the conditions of Industry 4.0 in
the first place, distribution of answers, % (the respondents could choose several items)
Element
Respondents, %
Stakeholder Engagement
50
Planning, including risk management
48
Quality management of product and service life cycle processes
40
Leadership at all levels of organization management
38
Exchange and management of quality data
36
Means and methods of quality assurance
24
Organization Performance Assessment
14
Improvement
10
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
490 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
As can be seen from Table 5, the respondents predominantly expected functional changes associated with the
transformation of approaches and models of interaction from both external as well as internal environments. These
changes mandate the usage of innovative quality management methods based on the technologies of the fourth industrial
revolution. A list of the most significant methods and technologies that can be used for quality management in the
transition to 'Industry 4.0' was also determined. The respondents were asked to indicate the innovative methods of quality
management that are already applied to the enterprise or organization and are planned for use in the next 3-5 years (Table
6).
Table 6: Distribution of answers on the application of innovative methods of quality management (the respondents could
choose several answers)
Answer
Apply,
%
Plan to
apply, %
Real-time customer feedback
40
55.1
Big Data Analysis of Quality
18
36.7
"Open quality", when all quality characteristics of any product are created, produced,
promoted and implemented on the basis of an open and transparent approach for various
stakeholders
26
30.6
Remote technologies (diagnostics, maintenance, training, communications)
38
26.5
The use of 3D modeling to improve the quality of processes of design, production,
installation, and maintenance of products
10
14.3
Blockchain
8
14.3
Internet of Things, IoT
8
14.3
Virtual Supply Chain Quality Management
2
12.2
Integration of all quality management functions through artificial intelligence
6
10.2
Systems engineering based on integrated design of technical systems and software according
to customer requirements
12
8.2
Autonomous robots
2
—
An analysis of the responses showed that almost one-third of the organizations (28%) currently do not use innovative
methods of quality management. In organizations that use these methods, the most popular was real-time feedback from
consumers and remote technologies, which confirms the priority of changes in interaction with stakeholders. These
methods are leading in the survey results conducted among 50 leaders of European industrial companies as given in the
literature (Krubasik et al., n.d.). When these two methods are used, it can bring the greatest benefit to the organization. So,
88% of the respondents representing European companies expect to receive benefits from the activation of consumer
feedback in real-time and 86% from the introduction of remote technologies. At the same time, only a small number of
representatives belonging to Russian organizations who participated in the study used 3D modeling, blockchain
technology, and artificial intelligence, the Internet of things, autonomous robots and virtual quality management tools.
Despite the high diffusion rate of these technologies, not more than 15% of organizations plan to use it for the next 3-5
years.
The most important condition for an effective transformation of QMS in the digital age is the organizational culture,
which ensures the harmonization of personnel actions and the application of technologies (Akhmetshin et al., 2018).
Therefore, the respondents were asked about the role played by organizational culture in the conditions of the fourth
industrial revolution. A total of 78% of respondents assured that the role played by organizational culture is set to increase
whereas 18% of respondents believed no impact in this regard and only 4% noted a decrease in the culture of the
enterprise or organization. The growing importance of organizational culture is associated with a change in the principles
of quality management. In the literature (Salimova & Vatolkina, 2018), the necessity to transform the principles of quality
management based on the challenges of the fourth industrial revolution was mentioned. The study revealed an expert
opinion on this transformation (Figure 2). The respondents could choose several principles. Figure 2 shows the answers of
the experts as a percentage. The experts consider the key principles of the organization to be the attraction and retention of
talents, the transition to the project and network approaches to management (the transition from the value chain to the
value network) and partnership with stakeholders. The significant importance, according to the respondents, will be the
involvement of consumers in value creation, shared leadership, value-based management, as well as responsibility for the
future. It was shown in the literature (Kuei & Lu, 2013) that all the principles of Total Quality Management are related to
Sustainable Development and the term 'quality-driven sustainable development' is introduced. The current study also
showed that six of the eight principles, reflect the responsible behavior of the organization in relation to its employees,
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
491 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
consumers, partners, and society as a whole, which should aim for modern enterprises and organizations to create
responsible quality management. Thus, it is possible to define responsible quality management as a coordinated
partnership of various groups of stakeholders to create products and services. This should meet the open quality (quality
4.0) standards-based on shared responsibility for management decisions in the interests of ensuring sustainable
development.
Figure 2: Distribution of answers about the most significant principles of Quality Management for organizations in the 3-
5 years perspective, % (the respondents could choose several answers)
Source: Elaborated by Authors
We performed the analysis of correlation according to the criterion of consent χ2 Pearson on key aspects of the study. This
criterion is used to assess the significance of the differences between the actual (revealed as a result of the study) number
of outcomes or qualitative characteristics of the sample falling into each category, and the theoretical number that can be
expected in the study groups with the validity of the null hypothesis (Grzhibovsky, 2008).
The value of the criterion χ2 was calculated using the formula:
(1)
where i is the row number (row, from 1 to r), j is the column number (from 1 to c), Oij is the actual number of
observations in cell ij, Eij – expected number of observations in cell ij of the contingency tables.
The Cramer V criterion is used to estimate the tightness of the relationship between nominal variables:
(2)
Research on the relationship between respondents 'responses to the following questions: "Is quality management a priority
in Your organization at the moment?" and "Whether, in Your opinion, the role of the QMS will change in the conditions
of the Fourth industrial revolution" assumes the construction of the conjugacy table (Table 7) and the table of expected
quantities of observations (Table 8).
Table 7: Conjugacy table
А1*
А2
А3
Total
В1
13
16
2
31
В2
4
4
2
10
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
492 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
В3
0
3
3
6
В4
1
0
2
3
Total
18
23
9
50
*A1 –«Yes, quality management is a key priority of our organization's strategy»
A2- «In general, yes, but quality management is not formalized as the strategy»
A3 – «No»
B1 – «The importance of the QMS will increase, since it is a mechanism for ensuring total transparency and integration of
processes, including processes of interaction with consumers and other groups of stakeholders on quality issues»
B2 – «It will not change, since the QMS is already fulfilling its role»
B3 – «It will decrease because in the conditions of the fourth industrial revolution, the development of QMS is not a
priority»
B4 – «Other»
Table 8: Expected quantities of observations
А1
А2
А3
В1
11.16
14.26
5.58
В2
3.6
4.6
1.8
В3
2.16
2.76
1.08
В4
1.08
1.38
0.54
The found value of the criterion χ2 = 13.885 exceeds the critical value (12.6), therefore, based on the application of the
criterion χ2 Pearson null hypothesis about the absence of a statistical relationship between the studied features can be
rejected at a significance level of 5%. The calculated Kramer criterion V (V = 0.215) shows the average strength of the
relationship. 70% of the companies surveyed, for whom quality management is a priority in the organization's strategy,
believe that the role of the QMS in the Fourth industrial revolution will increase, since the QMS is a mechanism for
ensuring total transparency and integration of processes, including processes of interaction with consumers and other
groups of stakeholders on quality issues.
When identifying the relationship between the answers to the questions "Is quality management a priority in your
organization at the moment?" and "Will the role of quality culture change in the fourth industrial revolution?" we also
obtained a significant (average) strength of the relationship (χ2 = 19.566, χ2kr = 12.6, V = 0.255).
Organizations for which quality management is a key priority of the strategy believe that the role of quality culture in the
conditions of the fourth industrial revolution will increase.
We see an interesting result when comparing the answers to the questions "Does your organization plan to increase the
focus on the development of quality management in the next 3-5 years?" and "Do you agree with the statement that in the
transition to the Fourth industrial revolution, the importance of quality management problems increases?". Although the
relationship is lower than average (χ2 = 22.316, χ2kr = 16.9, V = 0.161), we see that 76% of organizations that are
constantly improving approaches and methods of quality management, and plan to significantly strengthen the work in the
field of quality management absolutely agree that in the transition to the Fourth industrial revolution, the importance of
quality management issues increases and this is due to the transformation and integration of the processes of creating
products and services.
The study revealed that the digital transformation of modern organizations and QMS are inevitable objective processes
that should be reflected in the organizational development strategy as well as in the implemented approaches to quality
management, elements, and processes of QMS resulting in the transformation of quality concept. The concept of 'open
quality' or 'quality 4.0' is defined as the adaptive ability of products or services, at all stages of the life cycle, to satisfy the
needs of a specific consumer through partnerships with stakeholders and digital management of the value chain. Quality
4.0 is based on bridging the gap between consumer requirements and product properties which arises due to the need to
adapt mass products to meet the individual needs of a person or organization, on the transition to mass customization, as
shown in the literature (Ceylan et al., 2018), and reducing the customer sacrifice (Porterfield & Ferguson, 2012).
The following principles of quality management may become key areas in the new conditions: shared leadership;
attracting and retaining talent; involving consumers in value creation; transition to project and network management
approaches; organization capacity building through partnerships with stakeholders; value-based management and
responsibility for a sustainable future. Simultaneously, QMS, as an instrument of the global market, is called upon to
become a driver that integrates digital technologies and the principles of the new management paradigm. The empirical
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
493 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
study results based on the survey of managers and specialists in the field of quality management showed that the
development strategies of most of the surveyed enterprises and organizations were not yet focused on the changes that are
taking place. A significant section of the respondents confirmed that the importance of solving quality management
problems is increasing. At the same time, more than half of the respondents indicated that the globalization of the
economy, digitalization, growing transparency of the processes that take place in the society, and the growing complexity
of the products or services are the most significant trends that affect the practice of quality management. The
representatives, from the majority of the enterprises surveyed, confirmed the hypothesis that the role of the Quality
Management System in the conditions of Industry 4.0 is increasing as a mechanism to ensure transparency and integrated
processes. There is a significant correlation between the current role of the QMS in the organization and the perception of
its importance in the future. Hence, 76% of organizations that are constantly improving approaches and methods of
quality management, and plan to significantly strengthen the work in the field of quality management absolutely agree that
in the transition to the Fourth industrial revolution, the importance of quality management issues increases and this is due
to the transformation and integration of the processes of creating products and services. The respondents identified talent
attraction and retention as a key principle of quality management.
CONCLUSION
This study aims to examine the level of awareness and vision of prospects for the development of quality management and
its corresponding systems in the era of transition to the technologies and principles of Industry 4.0 among quality
management professionals of Russian companies. The results of the study found that despite the confirmation about the
importance of using innovative methods of quality management and digital technologies, it has been revealed that this
process involves above all, the transformation of managerial thinking itself. All transformational processes are focused on
human beings as the core element of production and consumption systems. It means that transition to Quality 4.0 calls for
the new understanding of stakeholders relationships and responsibilities, the transformation of core principles underlying
decision-making in companies, and not only implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies for quality improvement.
LIMITATIONS AND STUDY FORWARD
The limitation of this study lies in the small scope of the research location, which only sees the case of a limited number
of Russian companies and does not cover all types of industries.
As a direction for further research, it is planned to hold focus groups with experts in the field of quality with various
objectives such as to study the development directions of a systematic approach to quality management in the era of the
introduction of Industry 4.0 technologies, to develop recommendations for the implementation of Quality Management
Systems in enterprises and organizations that use these technologies and the cascading tasks to integrate the proposed
principles of quality management with existing integrated management systems. The authors of this paper plan to conduct
an additional expanded survey with an increase in the number and composition of study participants, as well as to develop
tactics for disseminating its results. Back in the mid-1970s, the American writer and thinker Pirsig (2006) noted that "the
quality that creates the world arises as a relationship between a person and his experience".
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 19-010-00968 «Methodology and tools of digitalization of
quality management of the education system, and ensuring sustainable development of economic agents».
CO-AUTHORS CONTRIBUTION
The first author is the leader of the research project. She contributed with the formulation of the research hypothesis and
conceptualization of the paper, prepared research methodology, participated in survey design and discussion of survey
results, made final review and editing of the paper.
The second author contributed with the literature review and participated in the writing of a paper draft. She participated
in the discussion of survey results.
The third author contributed to survey design, data collection, and formal analysis, discussion, and visualization of survey
results.
The fourth author contributed with correlation analysis, discussion of survey results, and final conclusions of the research
paper.
REFERENCES
1. Akberdina, V., Kalinina, A., & Vlasov, A. (2018). Transformation stages of the Russian industrial complex in the
context of economy digitization. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(4), 201-211.
https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(4).2018.17
2. Akhmetova, S. O., Baibolova, L. K., & Serikkyzy, M. S. (2019). Integrated quality management system for food
production: a case of dairy products' enterprise. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1807-1822.
https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.4(19)
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
494 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
3. Akhmetshin, E., Morozov, I., Pavlyuk, A., Yumashev, A., Yumasheva, N., & Gubarkov, S. (2018). Motivation of
personnel in an innovative business climate. European Research Studies Journal, 21(1), 352-361.
https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/953
4. Alpackaya, I., & Alpackiy, D. (2018). Perspectives and consequences of implementation and development digital
economy. MATEC Web of Conferences, 193, 05087. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819305087
5. Anupama, P. (2018). TQM as business strategy: a meta-analysis review. International Journal of Productivity
and Quality Management, 23(1), 74-79. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2018.10009280
6. Batkovskiy, A. M., Leonov, A. V., Pronin, A. Yu., Semenova, E. G., Fomina, A. V., & Balashov, V. M. (2019).
Sustainable development of Industry 4.0: the case of high-tech products system design. Entrepreneurship and
Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1823-1838. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.4(20)
7. Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-500.
https://doi.org/10.1086/671052
8. Brinza, V. V., Ilyichev, I. P., Ugarova, O. A., & Loginova, V. V. (2015). Prognostic simulation of external
economic activity for an industrial company. CIS Iron and Steel Review, 10, 27-39.
https://doi.org/10.17580/cisisr.2015.01.06
9. Ceylan, H. H., Karaca, Y., & Köse, O. U. B. (2018). Mass customization from consumer perspective: the
mediating role of customer customization sensitivity. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 6(81), 84-102.
https://doi.org/10.16992/ASOS.14270
10. Dahlgaard-Park, S. M., Reyes, L., & Chen, C. K. (2018). The evolution and convergence of total quality
management and management theories. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29(9-10), 1108-1128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1486556
11. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced
Engineering Studies.
12. Eddelani, O., El Idrissi, N. E., & Monni, S. (2019). Territorialized forms of production in Morocco: provisional
assessment for an own model in gestation. Insights into Regional Development, 1(1), 6-18.
https://doi.org/10.9770/ird.2019.1.1(1)
13. Foidl, H., & Felderer, M. (2016). Research challenges of Industry 4.0 for quality management. In: M. Felderer, F.
Piazolo, W. Ortner, L. Brehm & H. J. Hof (Eds.), Innovations in enterprise information systems management and
engineering. ERP Future 2015. Lecture notes in business information processing (Vol. 245, pp. 121–137).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32799-0_10
14. Grzhibovsky, A. M. (2008). Analysis of nominal data (independent observations). Human Ecology, 6, 58–68.
https://mognovse.ru/cnn-analiz-nominalenih-dannih-nezavisimie-nablyudeniya-2008-g.html
15. Hilkevics, S., & Semakina, V. (2019). The classification and comparison of business ratios analysis methods.
Insights into Regional Development, 1(1), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.9770/ird.2019.1.1(4)
16. International Organization for Standardization. (2015). International Standard ISO 9000:2015: Quality
management systems. Fundamentals and Vocabulary. https://www.iso.org/standard/45481.html
17. International Organization for Standardization. (2017). ISO Survey of certifications to management system
standards - Full results. https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=18808772&objAct
ion=browse&viewType=1
18. Kiel, D., Arnold, C., Muller, J. M., & Voigt, K. I. (2017). Sustainable industrial value creation: benefits and
challenges of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(8), 1-5.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617400151
19. Krubasik, S., Dirlea, V., Kidambi, R., & Sachseneder, C. (n.d.). Quality 4.0: preventive, holistic, future-proof.
Kearney. https://www.atkearney.com/industrial-goods-services/article?/a/quality-4-0-preventive-holistic-future-
proof
20. Kuei, C., & Lu, M. H. (2013). Integrating quality management principles into sustainability management. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(1-2), 62-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2012.669536
21. Mahrinasari, M. S. (2019). The country of origin (COO) model of the Indonesian and Chinese printed Batik
products. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 54(4). https://doi.org/10.35741/issn.0258-2724.54.4.6
22. Malitskaya, E. (2014). Assessment of an infrastructure project viability at different stages of its life cycle.
Journal of Contemporary Economics Issues, 2. https://doi.org/10.24194/21405
23. Moore, G. A. (2011). Escape velocity: free your company's future from the pull of the past. Harper Business.
24. Novikova, N. V., Barmuta, K. A., Kaderova, V. A., Il'Yaschenko, D. P., Abdulov, R. E., & Aleksakhin, A. V.
(2016). Planning of new products technological mastering and its influence on economic indicators of
companies. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(8 Special Issue), 65–70.
https://econjournals.com/index.php/ijefi/article/view/3701
25. Park, S. H., Shin, W. S., Park, Y. H., & Lee, Y. (2017). Building a new culture for quality management in the era
of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 28(9), 934-945.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1310703
26. Pirsig, R. M. (2006). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: an inquiry into values. HarperTorch.
27. Porterfield, K. G., & Ferguson, S. (2012). Quantifying customer sacrifice for use in product customization
problems. In ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 8, No 4, 2020, pp 483-495
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8447
495 |https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Salimova
Information in Engineering Conference (pp. 553–565). The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2012-71151
28. Raharja, W. T., Suryanto, Irianto, J., Suaedi, F., & Reindrawati, D. Y. (2019). Local public leadership
development through social learning to face the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong
University, 54(6). https://doi.org/10.35741/issn.0258-2724.54.6.53
29. Ryynänen, T. T., & Hyyryläinen, T. T. (2018). Digitalisation of consumption and digital humanities:
development trajectories and challenges for the future. In E. Mäkelä, M. Tolonen, & J. Tuominen (Eds.),
DHN18: DHN 2018: Proceedings of the Digital Humanities in the Nordic Countries 3rd Conference (pp. 363–
371). University of Helsinki. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2084/short11.pdf
30. Sader, S., Husti, I, & Daróczi, M. (2017). Total quality management in the context of Industry 4.0. In Synergy
International Conferences (Engineering, Agriculture and Green Industry Innovation).
31. Salimova, T., Vatolkina, N., & Makolov, V. (2014). Strategic partnership: Potential for ensuring the university
sustainable development. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 18(1), 107-124. https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v18i1.320
32. Salimova, T., & Vatolkina, N. (2018). Quality management in the transition to Industry 4.0. Standards and
Quality, 6, 58–62.
33. Scalabre, O. (n.d.). Embracing Industry 4.0 and rediscovering growth. Boston Consulting Group.
https://www.bcg.com/capabilities/operations/embracing-industry-4.0-rediscovering-growth.aspx
34. Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Business.
35. Shin, W. S., Dahlgaard, J. J., Dahlgaard-Park, S. M., & Kim, M. G. (2018). A quality scorecard for the era of
Industry 4.0. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29(9-10), 959-976.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1486536
36. Tarassov, V. B. (2019). Enterprise total agentification as a way to Industry 4.0: forming artificial societies via
goal-resource networks. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 874, 26-40.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01818-4_3
37. The backstage of Davos. (2018). Expert, 5(1061), 11–12.
38. Tishina, E. A., Rezantseva, E. Y., & Reut, D. V. (2017). The concept of digital transformation of the society. In
Proceedings of 10th International Conference Management of Large-Scale System Development (pp. 1–5).
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/MLSD.2017.8109697
39. Tyapukhin, A. (2013). Evolution of the principles of companies: author version. Journal of Contemporary
Economics Issues, 2. https://doi.org/10.24194/21305
40. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing,
68(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
41. Vitik, S. V., Koptyakova, S. V., & Balynskaya, N. R. (2016). Methodology for assessing the efficiency of labor-
related incentives at an enterprise. International Business Management, 10(4), 408-415.
42. Vlasov, A. I., Grigoriev, P. V., Krivoshein, A. I., Shakhnov, V. A., Filin, S. S., & Migalin, V.S. (2018). Smart
management of technologies: Predictive maintenance of industrial equipment using wireless sensor networks.
Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(2), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.2(2)
43. Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). The nine elements of digital transformation. MIT Sloan
Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-nine-elements-of-digital-transformation/
44. World Economic Forum. (2016). World Economic Forum White Paper: Digital Transformation of Industries:
Digital Enterprise. https://reports.weforum.org/digital-transformation/wp-content/blogs.dir/94/mp/files/pag
es/files/dti-digital-enterprise-white-paper.pdf
45. World Economic Forum. (n.d.). World Economic Forum White Paper Digital Consumption.
http://reports.weforum.org/digital-transformation/digital-consumption/
46. Xu, L. D., Xu, E. L., & Li, L. (2018). Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends. International Journal of
Production Research, 56(8), 2941-2962. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1444806
47. Yakhneeva, I. V., Agafonova, A. N., Fedorenko, R. V., Shvetsova, E. V., & Filatova, D. V. (2020). On
collaborations between software producer and customer: A kind of two-player strategic game. In: S. Ashmarina,
A. Mesquita & M. Vochozka (Eds.), Digital transformation of the economy: challenges, trends and new
opportunities. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 908, pp. 570–580). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11367-4_56
48. Yin, Y., Stecke, K. E., & Li, D. (2018). The evolution of production systems from Industry 2.0 through Industry
4.0. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1-2), 848-861.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1403664
49. Zaidin, N. H. M., Diah, M. N. M., Po, H. Y., & Sorooshian, S. (2018). Quality management in Industry 4.0 era.
Journal of Management and Science, 8(2), 82-91. https://doi.org/10.26524/jms.2018.17
50. Závadská, Z., & Závadský, J. (2018). Quality managers and their future technological expectations related to
Industry 4.0. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1(25), 1-25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1444474
