Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to develop the methodology of criterial evaluation of consequences of the Industrial Revolution of the 21st century. At that, the authors use the traditional methodology of evaluating the effectiveness of socio-economic phenomena and processes, modifying it with application of general scientific methods of research: induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis, and formalization, As a result, the authors offer criteria for determining evaluation of consequences of the Industrial Revolution of the 21st century and methodological recommendations for their practical application. Due to systematization and classification of these criteria, the authors’ formula has been developed for evaluating the effectiveness of the Industrial Revolution of the 21st century in the sphere of Industry 4.0. The advantages of the offered methodology of criterial evaluation of consequences of the Industrial Revolution of the 21st century is consideration of not only main and target indicators of formation and development of Industry 4.0 in modern economic systems but also additional indicators. The offered recommendations for bringing the indicators to general measuring units with the help of special coefficients allow conducting complete and complex evaluation of consequences of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The advantage of the offered methodology is high level of its detalization. The explained logic of treatment of the results of criterial evaluation of consequences of the Industrial Revolution of the 21st century with the help of this methodology envisages not only traditional accounting of the value of resulting indicator—coefficient of effectiveness of the Industrial Revolution of the 21st century in the sphere of Industry 4.0 but also considering other estimate criteria. Their model combinations allow determining the implemented scenarios of formation and development of Industry 4.0 in the conditions of knowledge economy’s formation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Bauernhansl, T., Schatz, A., & Jäger, J. (2014). Complexity management—industry 4.0 and the consequences: New challenges for sociotechnical production systems | [Komplexität bewirtschaften –Industrie 4.0 und die Folgen: Neue Herausforderungen für sozio-technische Produktionssysteme]. ZWF Zeitschrift fuer Wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb, 109(5), 347–350.
Bisang, R., Campi, M., & Anlló, G. (2015). Argentine agriculture: Technological revolution, agro-industrial transformation and territorial impacts | [L’agriculture argentine: Révolution technologique, transformation agro-industrielle et impacts territoriaux]. Geographie Economie Societe, 17(4), 409–432.
Bogoviz, A. V., Lobova, S. V., Ragulina, Y. V., Luchitskaya, L. B., & Shutova, T. V. (2017). Boosting innovative activity in companies: Problems and potential. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 12(6), 1690–1701.
Bogoviz, A. V., Ragulina, Y. V., Morozova, I. A., & Litvinova, T. N. (2018). Experience of modern Russia in managing economic growth. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 135, 147–154.
Bosso, C. J. (2012). Policy consequences of the “Next the Industrial Revolution”. Governing Uncertainty: Environmental Regulation in the Age of Nanotechnology (pp. 1–11.). Abingdon (UK): Taylor and Francis.
De Aguirre, I. F. (2017). Social consequences of technological development. beyond industry 4.0 | [Consecuencias sociales del desarrollo tecnológico. Más allá de la industria 4.0]. Dyna (Spain), 92(5), pp. 481–482.
Demel, J., Bockelmann, C., & Dekorsy, A. (2017). Evaluation of a software defined GFDM implementation for industry 4.0 applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, 7915548, pp. 1283–1288.
Demeter, G. (2010). The early effects of the industrial revolution on the Balkan Peninsula and the economic crisis in 1846–1847 (based on the commercial registers of Salonica). Bulgarian Historical Review, 38(1–2), 151–171.
Li, G., Hou, Y., & Wu, A. (2017). Fourth the industrial revolution: Technological drivers, impacts and coping methods. Chinese Geographical Science, 27(4), 626–637.
Mueller-Hummel, P., & Langhorst, T. (2016, October). Impact of the fourth the industrial revolution to complex aerospace “cFRP/Ti drilling applications” in conjunction with advanced cutting tool design and electric ADU’S. SAE Technical Papers, 2(1), pp. 48–54.
Murofushi, R. H., & Tavares, J. J. P. Z. S. (2017). Towards fourth the industrial revolution impact: Smart product based on RFID technology. In IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Magazine, 20(2), 7919135, pp. 51–55.
Perini, S., Arena, D., Kiritsis, D., & Taisch, M. (2017). An ontology-based model for training evaluation and skill classification in an industry 4.0 environment. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 513, 314–321.
Popkova, E. G., Bogoviz, A. V., Ragulina, Y. V., & Alekseev, A. N. (2018). Perspective model of activation of economic growth in modern Russia. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 135, 171–17.
Saniee, I., Kamat, S., Prakash, S., & Weldon, M. (2017). Will productivity growth return in the new digital era? An analysis of the potential impact on productivity of the fourth the Industrial Revolution. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 2(1), 135–142.
Šenberger, T., & Hořická, J. (2013). Structure impact on architectural form of multi-storey factory buildings of the industrial revolution. Structures and architecture: concepts, applications and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Structures and Architecture, ICSA 2013, pp. 1923–193.
Sukhodolov, A. P., Popkova, E. G., & Kuzlaeva, I. M. (2018). Methodological aspects of study of internet economy. Studies in Computational Intelligence, 714, 53–61.
Tao, Q., Kang, J., Sun, W., Li, Z., & Huo, X. (2016). Digital evaluation of sitting posture comfort in human-vehicle system under industry 4.0 framework. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering (English Edition), 29(6), 1096–1103.
Veselovsky, M. Y., Izmailova, M. A., Bogoviz, A. V., Ragulina, Y. V., & Lobova, S. V. (2017). Fostering the engagement of corporate establishments in the innovation-driven development of Russia’s regions. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 12(4), 945–959.
Zug, S., Wilske, S., Steup, C., & Lüder, A. (2015). Online evaluation of manipulation tasks for mobile robots in Industry 4.0 scenarios. In IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, ETFA, 2015-October, 7301455.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ragulina, Y.V., Alekseev, A.N., Strizhkina, I.V., Tumanov, A.I. (2019). Methodology of Criterial Evaluation of Consequences of the Industrial Revolution of the 21st Century. In: Popkova, E., Ragulina, Y., Bogoviz, A. (eds) Industry 4.0: Industrial Revolution of the 21st Century. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 169. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94310-7_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94310-7_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94309-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94310-7
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)