Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering

Review article

Complexity management challenges in the industry 4.0 era: A systematic

review in production systems
Germán Herrera-Vidal a,* , Jairo R. Coronado-Hernández b, Julien Maheut c
a
Industrial Engineering School, Universidad del Sinú, Cartagena, Colombia
b
Department of Productivity and Innovation, Universidad de la Costa, Barranquilla, Colombia
c
Business Organization Department, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Operational complexity in production systems has grown significantly with the adoption of Industry 4.0 tech­
Complexity management nologies. Managing it is a strategic challenge that conditions industrial efficiency, adaptability, and sustain­
Manufacturing systems ability. This research aims to analyze how these technologies impact the management of complexity in
Industry 4.0
manufacturing environments. Methodologically, a systematic literature review was conducted using the PRISMA
Systematic literature review
protocol, filtering 61,360 publications to select 27 key studies. The findings indicate that IoT, AI and CPS
optimize decision-making and personalization but also introduce new layers of technical, organizational, and
human complexity. In particular, a critical lack of standardized metrics for measuring and managing complexity
was identified. Furthermore, a weak connection to the emerging principles of Industry 5.0, centered on human-
technology collaboration, is evident. Consequently, a classification of complexity factors (internal, external,
static, and dynamic) is proposed, and future lines of research oriented towards the development of adaptive
human-centered frameworks and sustainability are suggested.

1. Introduction Industry 4.0 presents itself as a disruptive opportunity that has the
potential to transform traditional manufacturing systems into intelli­
Complexity in manufacturing systems has been an inherent chal­ gent, interconnected, and highly adaptive systems [3,4]. However, it has
lenge since the beginning of industrial production due to the increasing also given rise to challenges in managing the emerging complexity. In
interdependence between the various elements that make up these particular, the interaction between multiple autonomous components
systems. Since the Industrial Revolution, manufacturing systems have generates interdependencies that complicate manufacturing systems’
continuously evolved, where technological innovations have driven analysis, control, and optimization [5]. For example, cyber-physical
improvements in efficiency and productivity. Throughout this process, systems enable automation and real-time decision-making but also
complexity has increased significantly, leading to the development of add new layers of complexity due to their interrelationship with the
new strategies and approaches to manage emerging interactions and physical and digital environment [6].
dependencies in production environments [1]. In parallel, the field of complexity has evolved with the growing need
With the advent of Industry 4.0, complexity in manufacturing sys­ to approach these manufacturing systems from a systemic perspective.
tems has reached new dimensions due to the integration of advanced Traditional management and optimization approaches are limited due
technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence to the increasing amount of data, interconnections, and external vari­
(AI), Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), Big Data, and advanced robotics. ables that influence modern industrial processes. Managing complexity
This paradigm, first coined in 2011 in Germany, marks a convergence in these contexts requires a deep understanding of how the various
between digital technologies and physical production systems, pro­ subsystems within a production framework interact and how technolo­
moting interconnectivity and autonomy in production processes [2]. As gies such as IoT and Big Data can help model, forecast, and mitigate
factories adopt these technologies, companies face greater complexity in adverse effects [7].
operational terms, strategic decision-making, and information flow The convergence between both fields, complexity in manufacturing
management. systems and Industry 4.0, is inevitable and essential for the future

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Herrera-Vidal), [email protected] (J.R. Coronado-Hernández), [email protected] (J. Maheut).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.105329
Received 10 March 2025; Received in revised form 29 April 2025; Accepted 13 May 2025
Available online 14 May 2025
2590-1230/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

evolution of smart factories. In this context, complexity management is introduce a future vision by considering the next step in the industrial
not only a technical issue but also a strategic one, as it influences revolution, Industry 5.0, and how it might reshape complexity man­
decision-making at the managerial level, resource optimization, and agement. Finally, RQ6 also seeks to understand how the more humane
responsiveness to environmental changes. Thus, studying the interaction and sustainable approach of Industry 5.0 can redefine and optimize the
between Industry 4.0 and complexity in manufacturing is crucial to way technical and operational complexities are handled in advanced
understanding how modern production systems can adapt, optimize, manufacturing.
and scale in an environment of constant technological transformation. This paper is structured in six main sections. Section 2 reviews the
Several recent studies have addressed the relationship between literature on complexity management in Industry 4.0, highlighting the
complexity and Industry 4.0 from partial approaches. The Table 1 most relevant contributions in this field. The third section describes the
summarizes and contrasts these studies with the present study, high­ methodology used to carry out the study, while the fourth section pre­
lighting their approaches, the technologies considered, and the gaps sents the results and discussions. Subsequently, the fifth section presents
detected. a new contribution to complexity management. This is followed in
This research sheds light on the relationship between these two section 6 by an agenda for future research. Finally, the seventh section
emerging fields. It provides an in-depth analysis of how Industry 4.0 summarizes the conclusions of the study.
impacts operational complexity in manufacturing systems and the
challenges and opportunities that arise in this dynamic environment. In 2. Theoretical foundations
this regard, this research aims to analyze and address the challenges
posed by complexity management in the era of Industry 4.0. This sys­ Complexity in manufacturing systems is a fundamental concept
tematic literature review seeks to identify the approaches and solutions analyzed in various fields of study. The term “complexity,” derived from
proposed by the scientific community to manage this complexity and to the Latin “complexus”, refers to something “confused, intertwined or
evidence the existing gaps in current knowledge. This analysis aims to twisted” [1,10,11]. In more contemporary terms, complexity is defined
identify future trends in complexity management and suggest new as the difficulty of understanding or solving a problem due to multiple
research areas to advance the understanding of complex manufacturing interrelated parts [12]. Ashby, through his Law of Requisite Variety,
systems. To this end, the following research questions (RQs) are states that “only complexity can absorb complexity,” suggesting that the
addressed: greater the complexity in a system, the greater the effort of control by
RQ1. How does Industry 4.0 impact complexity management in the observer [13]. Throughout the literature, there is no universal
manufacturing systems, and what specific mechanisms facilitate or definition of complexity, reflecting the inherent difficulty in its char­
complicate this process? acterization. Some authors, such as Simon [14], define it as a system
RQ2. What challenges does Industry 4.0 pose for accurately with many parts interrelated in a non-simple manner. Others, such as
measuring and effectively managing complexity in manufacturing sys­ Yates [15], consider that complexity depends on the system’s size,
tems, and how might they be overcome? randomness, asymmetry, and constraints. In short, complexity implies a
RQ3. What roles do emerging Industry 4.0 technologies (IoT, AI, significant effort to understand the information needed to describe a
CPS) play in reducing operational complexity, and what new complexity system [16].
issues emerge due to their adoption? From a more quantitative perspective, complexity in real systems
RQ4. How does the lack of a comprehensive metric framework for refers to the impossibility of a formal system to capture all the properties
complexity in manufacturing systems affect the development of effective of a system, even when one has complete information about its elements
management strategies under the Industry 4.0 paradigm? and their interrelationships [17]. In manufacturing systems, this trans­
RQ5. How can lessons learned from implementing Industry 4.0 in­ lates into an organized and efficient network that transforms raw ma­
fluence the transition to Industry 5.0, especially regarding complexity terials into finished products [18], characterized by instability due to the
management and human-technology integration? resources involved and the uncertainty of external variables [19]. A key
RQ6. How can transitioning from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 aspect that increases complexity in these systems is the volume of
transform complexity management in manufacturing systems? components and the number of tasks or activities required for produc­
These questions address challenging aspects that encourage critical tion [20]. Factors such as machine failures, non-compliance with spec­
analysis and debate in your systematic review of complexity manage­ ifications, or absence of personnel also contribute to this increase [21].
ment in manufacturing systems in the era of Industry 4.0. Through RQ1, In addition, industrial environments are becoming increasingly
this paper seeks to understand the impact of Industry 4.0 and the details competitive, forcing organizations to reconfigure their processes and
of the mechanisms that influence complexity management, stimulating services, increasing complexity [22]. This increased complexity nega­
an in-depth analysis of the relationship between technology and com­ tively impacts indicators such as revenue, productivity, costs, cycle time,
plex systems. On the other hand, RQ2 aims to assess the existence of and throughput time [23–25]. To correctly manage complexity, identi­
adequate metrics and encourage discussion on how to improve the fying, measuring, analyzing, and controlling it is necessary [26]. The
measurement of complexity. Similarly, RQ3 invites discussion on how most common approaches to estimating complexity in manufacturing
introducing advanced technologies could solve some problems while systems include nonlinear dynamics, information theory (Shannon en­
simultaneously creating new forms of complexity. From another tropy), hybrid methods, questionnaires, and quantitative index methods
perspective, the current state of complexity measurement, highlighting [27]. Recent research has proposed hybrid and entropic metrics to
critical gaps in the literature, is dealt with in RQ4. Also, RQ5 aims to address the shortcomings of previous approaches [26,28]. These metrics

Table 1
Comparison of relevant studies on complexity in Industry 4.0 environments.
Study Inclusive Design in Occupational Complexity Management Technologies Analyzed Metrics
I4.0 Safety Proposed

Correia [8] ✓ ​ Organizational, human complexity IoT, assistive technologies ​

Adriaensen et al. ​ ✓ (risk, system coupling) Adaptive systems ​
[9]
This paper ​ ​ Technical, organizational, human, strategic IoT, AI, CPS, Big Data, Digital ✓
complexity Twins

2
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

offer a more accurate way to quantify and manage complexity in modern reviewed scholarly literature spanning multiple scientific and techno­
manufacturing systems [26,27]. In the context of engineering and op­ logical disciplines [39,40]. The selection of these databases is key to
erations management, complexity management refers to the set of capture a global and up-to-date perspective of studies on complexity
methods, tools, and organizational practices aimed at identifying, management challenges in Industry 4.0.
evaluating, and controlling the multiple interdependencies, un­ The SLR methodology was also supported by the guidelines of
certainties, and dynamic behaviors that affect production systems ([19]; Kitchenham and Charters [41] and the recommendations of Dybå and
ElMaraghy, 2005). Managing complexity in this domain involves more Dingsøyr [42], which are widely used in the engineering field. These
than measurement—it requires designing resilient and adaptive systems guidelines were instrumental in defining the research protocol, which
that can maintain performance under fluctuating conditions. As Moeuf included the selection of keywords, search strings, databases, data
et al. [29] suggest, effective complexity management in Industry 4.0 extraction procedures, and analysis of results. Fig. 1 describes the
environments demands an integrated approach combining digital tech­ methodology used for SLR, which includes three stages: identification of
nologies, data-driven decision-making, and human-centric organiza­ publications, screening, and eligibility through analysis and synthesis.
tional structures.
On the other hand, the concept of Industry 4.0 emerged in 2011 as a 3.1. Step 1: Identification
strategic initiative of the German government to drive digitalization in
companies [30]. This fourth industrial revolution marks a milestone in In the first stage of the PRISMA process, a comprehensive search of
industrial development, preceded by Industry 1.0 (steam engines), In­ the Scopus and Science Direct databases was carried out. Six specific
dustry 2.0 (electrification), and Industry 3.0 (information technology) queries have been formulated to address the relationship between In­
(Schwab 2017). Through Industry 4.0, the integration of advanced dustry 4.0 and complexity in manufacturing systems, designed to cap­
digital technologies, such as cyber-physical systems, is promoted, ture a wide range of relevant aspects in the scientific literature. The
enabling a high degree of automation and operational efficiency [31]. initial queries explore the general impact of Industry 4.0 on the
Key technologies in Industry 4.0 include AI, Cloud Computing, the IoT, complexity of production systems, covering terms such as “Industry 4.0”
Smart and Adaptive Manufacturing, 3D printing, and Cyber-Physical and “system complexity” to identify key studies in this area (“Industry
Systems [32]. These technologies transform the relationship between 4.0” OR “Fourth Industrial Revolution”) AND (“complexity” OR “system
suppliers, customers, and manufacturers and between humans and complexity”) AND (“manufacturing systems” OR “production systems”).
machines [33]. Through their implementation, production cycles are It is complemented by searches focused on emerging technologies and
reduced, equipment maintenance is automated, and responsiveness to their complexity management, such as “cyber-physical systems”, “IoT”
customer demands is improved, giving rise to smart factories [34]. and “automation”, which are fundamental to understanding technology
However, the implementation of Industry 4.0 faces several challenges. integration and its effect on efficiency and complexity control (“cyber-
The cost of adoption, lack of standards, lack of a clear strategy, and data physical systems” OR “IoT” OR “automation”) AND (“complexity man­
security are some of the main obstacles to be overcome [35]. In addition, agement” OR “complexity control”) AND (“manufacturing” OR “pro­
emerging countries tend to be more resistant to automation and reor­ duction systems”). The research also addresses dynamic complexity
ganization of their factories [36]. Despite these limitations, integrating through terms such as “dynamic complexity” and “system dynamics”,
digital technologies can create new business models, increase competi­ analyzing how these complexities evolve in the context of Industry 4.0
tiveness, and improve work organization [37]. (“dynamic complexity” OR “system dynamics”) AND (“Industry 4.0”)
From the field of synergy, the interaction between the complexity of AND (“manufacturing systems” OR “production”). To assess the impact
manufacturing systems and Industry 4.0 technologies is an emerging on process optimization, terms such as “optimization” and “efficiency”
field of research. Industry 4.0, through advanced technologies, offers are used in combination with “Industry 4.0”, enabling a detailed analysis
tools to manage and mitigate the complexity inherent in manufacturing of how digitization improves complexity management (“Industry 4.0”
systems [19]. According to studies by Lasi et al. [32], adopting digital OR “cyber-physical systems”) AND (“optimization” OR “efficiency”)
platforms, process automation, and collaborative planning are key AND (“complexity” AND “manufacturing”). The effects of advanced
strategies to reduce complexity. In addition, incorporating lean automation on the complexity of manufacturing systems are also
manufacturing methodologies and embracing Industry 4.0 technologies addressed, including technologies such as “AI” and “robotics” (“Auto­
enable companies to deal with the increasing complexity of industrial mation” OR “robotics” OR “AI”) AND (“complexity”) AND
environments effectively [29]. The literature indicates that smart (“manufacturing systems”) AND (“Industry 4.0”). Finally, the effects of
manufacturing systems, based on Industry 4.0 technologies, can quickly digitalization on production systems are explored by assessing how
adapt to changes and reduce the adverse effects of complexity [19]. As digital transformations affect complexity (“Digitalization” OR “digital
systems become more interconnected and autonomous, a new layer of transformation”) AND (“complexity”) AND (“manufacturing”) AND
dynamic complexity is generated that requires new forms of control and (“Industry 4.0”). Fig. 1 shows that six different queries were constructed
management [36]. by combining Boolean operators (AND, OR) and key terms related to
‘Industry 4.0’, “complexity”, ‘manufacturing,’ and associated technolo­
3. Literature review methodology gies. The searches were conducted in two databases (Scopus and Sci­
enceDirect), without initial restrictions by subject area, year or type of
This systematic literature review (SLR) was performed according to document, in order to ensure maximum sensitivity in the identification
the methodology recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for stage. From this design, 61,360 documents were obtained, which will be
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, which es­ successively filtered in the following phases.
tablishes a rigorous framework for conducting systematic reviews and
meta-analyses in scientific research ([38]; Khaw et al., 2022). PRISMA 3.2. Step 2: screening
guarantees the transparency and reproducibility of the review process,
facilitating the identification, selection, and synthesis of the most rele­ In the first filtering, only research and review papers were selected
vant studies. In line with these guidelines, the present investigation from the initial totality, excluding book chapters, theses, and conference
followed a sequential structure that included data collection first and publications. The set was reduced to 49,294 articles, discarding
then a detailed analysis of the information obtained. approximately 19.7 % of the documents initially identified. Subse­
Two prestigious scientific databases were selected to ensure quently, in a second filtering, Boolean logic was used on the titles, ab­
comprehensive coverage: ScienceDirect and Scopus. Both platforms are stracts, and keywords of the remaining documents, refining the results to
essential for researchers due to their extensive collection of peer- 552 articles. This stage represents a significant reduction of 98.88 %,

3
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

Fig. 1. SLR protocol for complexity management challenges in the industry 4.0 era.

emphasizing the accuracy of the queries in identifying highly relevant The meticulous selection ended with 27 relevant publications, where
literature. Finally, in the third filtering stage, the 552 articles were only 0.044 % of the initially identified studies were selected for analysis,
reviewed to eliminate duplicities, leaving 439 articles. Approximately demonstrating the rigor and selectivity of the review process. Fig. 1
20.47 % of the articles at this stage were duplicates, improving the clearly illustrates this process, where applying the PRISMA criteria
data’s integrity for subsequent analyses. ensured that only the most relevant and high-quality studies were
included, which is fundamental to addressing the research questions and
contributing significantly to the existing literature.
3.3. Step 3: eligibility - analysis and synthesis In addition to that, Fig. 2 provides a conceptual funnel-shaped
visualization that illustrates the progressive narrowing of the article
In this critical phase, all 439 papers were examined for their rele­ pool through critical stages, from title and abstract review to full-text
vance to the research questions and the specific inclusion criteria of the assessment and synthesis.
Industry 4.0 complexity study. The detailed analysis led to the exclusion
of 412 studies that did not meet the established criteria, leaving 27
relevant papers. The last stage of the PRISMA process involved an in- 3.4. Quality assessment
depth analysis of the selected papers. Titles, abstracts, and the full
body of papers were reviewed to apply inclusion criteria focused on the In this section, the quality of the papers that met the criteria was
application of complexity in manufacturing systems integrated with assessed using seven essential points based on an adaptation of the
Industry 4.0 technologies. This stage saw a 93.85 % reduction, under­ guidelines proposed by Kitchenham and Charters in 2007. The checklist
lining the thoroughness in selecting only those studies that precisely technique was used for the evaluation, using a three-level scale (1:
address the key themes of the review. “Yes”; 0.5: “Partial”; 0: “No”). In this way, each investigation could score

4
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

criteria (C) evaluated, providing a comprehensive view of methodo­

logical strengths and weaknesses. Criteria C2 (Study Design), C3
(Techniques), and C7 (Contribution to the Bibliography) present the
highest scores, with an average above 75 %, indicating that the studies
tend to be well structured and methodologically sound in terms of
application of techniques and contribution to scientific knowledge.
However, criterion C5 (Data Collection), with an average of 65 %, re­
veals a consistent weakness in the lack of clarity or detail about the used
methods. Similarly, C6 (Study Context) also shows a relatively low
score, suggesting that many studies do not adequately specify the
context or discipline in which they are framed, affecting the applica­
bility of the results. Overall, the graph highlights key areas where
studies are methodologically strong but also underscores the need for
Fig. 2. Funnel diagram of the systematic review process.
improvements in data collection and contextualization of studies to
meet the standards expected in high-impact scientific research.
between 0 and 7 points, indicating that a higher score reflects a superior
study preparedness to address the research questions [41]. Aspects 4. Results and discussion
evaluated include:
The last few years have been marked by the great interest of the
1. Are the research objectives clearly specified? scientific and business community in complexity and Industry 4.0 in
2. Has the study been designed to achieve these objectives? manufacturing systems. An analysis of the trends from the total number
3. Are the techniques considered by the study clearly specified? of papers collected in the Scopus database allows observing in Fig. 5 a
4. Is the research model reported? significant positive relationship between time and complexity in
5. Are the methods of data collection adequately detailed? manufacturing, as indicated by the trend line equation (y = 21.038x -
6. Is the context/discipline of the study clearly specified? 42.833), with a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.9474. This high
7. Do the results add anything to the literature suggests that almost 95 % of the variability in manufacturing complexity
can be explained by the passage of time, reflecting an excellent fit of the
Fig. 3, with a threshold of 70 %, reveals that the papers (P) above this linear model to the observed data. On the other hand, the trend of In­
limit, such as P4, P6, P8, P9, P12, P15, P24 and P27, amply meet the dustry 4.0 in manufacturing, represented by the equation (y = 1.2448x
criteria of methodological quality, evidencing solidity in the design of + 10.576) with an (R2) 0.579, shows a less pronounced and more stable
the study, clarity in the objectives and contribution to the scientific growth, indicating that only about 45 % of the variability in Industry 4.0
literature. These studies are methodologically robust, which makes them adoption can be attributed to the time factor.
adequate references to support high-impact scientific research. In From a time perspective, the period from 2013 to 2017 shows a
contrast, papers below the threshold, such as P1, P3, P18, P20, and P22, gradual increase in complexity and Industry 4.0 adoption, although
present deficiencies in data collection or context specification areas. complexity increased faster around 2017. This increase could be linked
However, although they fall short of the expected methodological to introducing and adjusting new technologies and market demands that
standard, these papers are still valuable in providing initial insights or boost complexity. Between 2017 and 2022, complexity in
serving as a basis for academic critiques and debates. In this sense, the manufacturing reached a significant peak, especially in 2020, suggestive
graph highlights the most rigorous studies and identifies those that, of intense technological transformation or market changes that
although methodologically weaker, can contribute to a broader and contribute to increased process complexity. After 2022, while
more critical scientific discussion. complexity appears to stabilize and even show a potential decline,
Fig. 4 shows the average compliance of the 27 papers in the seven

Fig. 3. Paper quality evaluation – compliance with criteria.

5
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

Fig. 4. Average compliance by criteria.

Fig. 5. Complexity and industry 4.0 trends (2013-2024).

Industry 4.0 maintains a stable growth trajectory, which could indicate a selected through a comprehensive PRISMA process, using a fact sheet
maturing technology integration that begins to mitigate some of the designed to capture and analyze the dynamics and challenges associated
complexity challenges in manufacturing. with integrating cutting-edge technologies. Each paper was evaluated
Based on the keywords, using VosViewer software support, 1,107 under specific criteria ranging from the problem addressed to the
keywords are identified, with a minimum cooccurrence threshold of 5 technologies applied and the methodology used, providing a detailed
times per word, narrowing the network to 41 nodes for visual effects. analysis of the ’complexionarium’ in these environments. This approach
Fig. 6 reveals a detailed and technical network of the predominant allows the delineation of key contributions and emerging practical ap­
keywords in the Industry 4.0 domain, highlighting the intrinsic inter­ plications and the identification and proposal of future research di­
connection between complexity management and advanced technolo­ rections based on the gaps and opportunities discovered (see Table 2).
gies in production systems. Terms such as “complexity” and “Industry In synthesis, the papers examine various complexity-related chal­
4.0” stand out as central nodes, evidencing their relevance and fre­ lenges in production systems, focusing mainly on mass customization,
quency in the current literature. On the other hand, the integration of system integration, and data management. Topics such as human-robot
digital technologies such as the “Internet of Things” (IoT) and “big data” interaction and autonomous decision-making are also highlighted,
in manufacturing is revolutionizing the management of complexity in reflecting a diversity of problems within the scope of Industry 4.0. The
production systems. The prominence of nodes related to data analytics studies address organizational and technological complexities, focusing
and simulation in the co-occurrence network points to a growing trend on CPS, the interconnection of automated systems, and challenges in
toward the use of advanced analytical methods and modeling to address implementing IoT and Big Data. Most papers using emerging technolo­
complexity. This co-occurrence analysis validates the research’s rele­ gies such as Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), IoT, self-
vance and reinforces the need to address how these two areas are organizing systems, and advanced simulation evidence a predomi­
intrinsically linked and critical to the evolution of modern nance of experimental methods and case studies, with significant use of
manufacturing practices. modeling and simulation to evaluate complex scenarios. From a prac­
The research is based on a rigorous systematic review of 27 papers tical perspective, the findings show a wide range of industrial sectors,

6
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

Fig. 6. Keyword co-occurrence in industry 4.0 and manufacturing.

from advanced manufacturing to agriculture and logistics, demon­ the autonomy of production systems but in turn, have introduced new
strating the versatility and cross-cutting relevance of Industry 4.0 challenges in the management of large volumes of data, interoperability
technologies and methods. As future research lines, the research sug­ and standardization of protocols [46,54,60,50,66,64]. On the other
gests further research into applying innovative business models and hand, the ability of companies to manage this complexity is increasingly
expanding the use of CPS. They also highlight the importance of dependent on the implementation of advanced data analytics and AI
improving human-machine interfaces and developing more robust and tools, which enable more informed decision-making, albeit with greater
adaptable systems for future production demands. difficulty due to the heterogeneity of the technologies involved [46,54,
To obtain answers to the six research questions (RQs), in this SLR, 27 50]. In addition, the growing interconnectedness and dependence on
research publications on Complexity Management in the Industry 4.0 digital infrastructures pose significant challenges in cybersecurity, an
era during the last decade of this century are analyzed. Fig. 7 shows the aspect whose complexity has been exacerbated in digital industrial en­
distribution of papers searching for an answer to each research question. vironments [49,63]. In synthesis, while Industry 4.0 offers mechanisms
A strong trend towards future transformation (RQ6) and technology to manage complexity through automation and digitization, it also
adoption (RQ3) is evident, indicating that the present and future of generates new layers of difficulty that require systematic and adaptive
complexity management in manufacturing under Industry 4.0 and 5.0 approaches to ensure competitiveness and sustainability in an increas­
are active research areas. ingly interconnected industrial environment.
At the same time, the relative paucity of studies in areas such as
lessons learned (RQ5) and the development of standardized metrics 4.2. What specific challenges does Industry 4.0 pose for accurately
(RQ4) suggests opportunities for future work to address these gaps. measuring and effectively managing complexity in manufacturing systems,
Furthermore, papers15 and 13, respectively, (RQ1) and (RQ2) show that and how might they be overcome?
both the impact of Industry 4.0 on complexity and the challenges related
to complexity measurement and management are topics of equal The objective of question RQ2 is to identify the specific challenges of
importance in the available studies, suggesting that while the applica­ Industry 4.0 in accurately measuring and effectively managing
tion of Industry 4.0 technologies has been widely explored, there are still complexity within manufacturing systems. By analyzing the selected
unknowns and practical challenges that require further attention, papers, a comprehensive understanding and possible solutions can be
especially in terms of creating effective measurement mechanisms for developed, shedding light on how organizations can address the com­
more accurate complexity management in industrial environments. plexities introduced by advanced technologies (see Table 4).
Analysis of the challenges posed by Industry 4.0 for the accurate
4.1. How does Industry 4.0 impact complexity management in measurement and effective management of complexity in
manufacturing systems, and what specific mechanisms facilitate or manufacturing systems shows several key obstacles. Prominent among
complicate this process? them is the lack of standardized metrics [46,63,66], complicating the
benchmarking and overall understanding of complexity in these sys­
The objective of question RQ1 is to identify the impact of Industry tems. In addition, the variability and dynamism of production systems
4.0 on complexity management in manufacturing systems. A solid add another layer of complexity, requiring the implementation of
answer can be found in the selected papers (See Table 3). standardized frameworks to manage them effectively [46,65]. The
The irruption of Industry 4.0 has led to a considerable increase in interoperability of heterogeneous technologies also presents a signifi­
operational complexity within manufacturing systems. The literature cant challenge, as integrating cyber-physical systems and IoT solutions
analysis reveals that this complexity mainly manifests in four key areas: increases technological and management complexity [46,50,54]. Like­
operation, decision-making, technology integration, and cybersecurity. wise, cybersecurity and risk management emerge as critical concerns
On the one hand, intensive digitization and advanced automation, due to the interconnectedness and dependency of digital systems in a
facilitated by technologies such as CPS and digital twins, have increased hyper-connected environment [49,63]. Finally, organizational aspects

7
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

Table 2
Integral data sheet on complexity management in production systems with industry 4.0.
Papers Problem Complexionary 4.0 Methodology Contribution Applicability Future line(s)
Technologies

P1 [43] Mass production Complex autonomous AI, analytics, Case study Risk analysis for analog Personalized Extend the model to
transition to decision-making simulation vs. digital models manufacturing other industrial
personalization systems models process complexes
P2 [44] Complex systems for Complexity in IoT, Additive Simulation Improved risk Manufacturing Explore emerging
demand-driven order resource and demand Manufacturing management processes in systems in industrial
processing management industrial areas
complexes
P3 [45] Industry 4.0-driven Organizational Not specified Case study Study of Industry 4.0 Industrial settings Expand integrated
deviations complexity systems impacts system applications
P4 [46] Cyber-physical systems Integration CPS, IoT, RAMI Experimental Integrated systems Applied in smart Expand CPS
(CPS) complexity and complexities 4.0 study model development manufacturing applications
distribution
P5 [47] System complexity Logic-based Automation, Big Modeling Development of a Smart Enhance model
automation complexity control data guideline model Manufacturing accuracy
P6 [48]. Interference Time-based Cognitive Case study Improved uncertainty Integrated systems Expand system
management in storage complexity in manufacturing management in smart applications
systems cognitive manufacturing
manufacturing
P7 [49] Automated industrial Systems Automation Comparative Strategy for industrial Industrial Apply in other
process complexities interconnection study automation applications industries
P8 [50] Large data volume IoT and Big Data IoT, Big Data Experimental Real-time data analysis Decision-making in Extend the use of Big
management integration framework model big data Data models
complexities environments
P9 [51] Synchronization in Supply chain CPS Simulation Optimization of Agriculture sectors Enhance the model to
manufacturing and complexity systems for peak improve accuracy
assembly performance
P10 CPS implementation System CPS, IoT Simulation Development of a Applicable in Expand applications
[52] complexities interconnections sustainable model diverse industrial
sectors
P11 Operator capacity Use of AR and VR to AR, VR Experimental Retention improvement Industries requiring Optimize learning
[53] enhancement in improve training study through AR and VR advanced training systems
industrial settings
P12 CPS complexity Autonomous systems CPS, IoT, Simulation Conceptual model for Manufacturing Expand system
[54] interconnection Autonomous auto-organization process automation stability studies
systems
P13 Product complexity Information entropy Entropy metrics Theoretical Entropy model to Personalized Expand entropy
[55] through as a complexity metric study measure complexity products metrics in different
personalization industries
P14 Systems Physical and virtual CPS, Distributed Experimental Development of Manufacturing Extend the use of the
[56] interconnection components systems study indicators to measure flexibility model
complexities integration complexity
P15 Cost increase due to Technical complexity CPS, Modeling Cost-benefit CPS Expand the model
[57] system complexity management Optimization classification implementation applications
framework
P16 Demand for Use-based model Pay-per-use Case study Development of pay- Advanced Prepare for adoption
[58] personalized and complexity models per-use models manufacturing of pay-per-use models
flexible products sectors
P17 Management of large Complexity in Information Mathematical Proposal of a modeling Applicable in Extend the approach
[59] volumes of information communication theory. modeling approach based on advanced industrial to other Industry 4.0
in interconnected between systems in information theory sectors sectors
systems Industry 4.0.
P18 Integral evaluation of Dynamic modeling Digital twins, Simulation. Integral manufacturing Industrial Application in real
[60] manufacturing systems with digital twins. simulation optimization processes, systems and
maintenance, production networks
quality
P19 Human-robot Complexity in Cobots, HRC Experimental Analysis of the impact Advanced Encourage advances
[61] collaboration (HRC) in collaborative human- study of human-robot manufacturing in the implementation
production systems robot interaction collaboration on of HRC in
productivity manufacturing
P20 Synchronization Real-time Case study Case study Software Advanced Develop software for
[62] complexities in reprogramming reprogramming process manufacturing other sectors
production and improvement
assembly
P21 Multifunctional Integration challenges CPS, IoT, Multi- Simulation Functional Diverse industrial Define clear objectives
[63] systems complexities with CPS and multi- agents improvements for settings for CPS integration
agents system interfaces
P22 Computational Semantic modeling Digital twins, Simulation Digital twins with Embedded systems Guidelines for
[64] representation of and digital twins CPS, sensors. semantic web. for intelligent advanced cyber-
complex phenomena manufacturing physical systems
P23 Distribution Task distribution in CPS, Distributed Simulation Distribution model for Manufacturing Expand research into
(Shott complexities in complex scenarios systems task management flexibility other industrial
et al., distributed systems sectors
2020)
(continued on next page)

8
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

Table 2 (continued )
Papers Problem Complexionary 4.0 Methodology Contribution Applicability Future line(s)
Technologies

P24 Mass personalization Product design CPS, Design Experimental Personalization Flexible Study adaptation in
[65] complexities personalization systems study strategy for product manufacturing various environments
challenges design
P25 Complexity in the Challenges in the IoT, Intelligent Simulation Proposal of a Networked Extend coordination
[66] coordination of management of networks coordination system to production sectors. in industrial sectors
networked production interconnected manage complexity in
systems industrial networks production networks
P26 Complexity in product Technical and CPS, Mass Simulation Development of a Customized Apply the model in
[67] customization in technological customization model to manage manufacturing other industrial
Industry 4.0 challenges in complexity in environments
customization customized products
P27 Complexity in the Challenges in the IoT, CPS, Smart Case study Framework proposal Advanced digital Validate the
[68] integration of digital digitization of Manufacturing for information and manufacturing framework in different
production systems industrial networks system management industrial sectors

Fig. 7. Papers distribution per research question.

and the human impact of adopting these technologies require robust (ii) AI is instrumental in reducing operational complexity by auto­
development and training strategies [53]. Addressing these challenges mating processes and optimizing decision-making [46,48,50,57,
requires approaches that combine advanced analytics and ML [61,63, 68]. ML algorithms make it possible to analyze large volumes of
68], robust cybersecurity strategies [49,68], and ongoing organizational data and predict outcomes, which improves planning and
training programs [53], which will enable more effective management resource management. According to Guo et al. [50], Estrada et al.
of complexity in the Industry 4.0 era. [54], Puttero et al. [61], Ribeiro and Hochwallner [63], Su et al.
[65] and Zhu et al. [68], AI can help reduce complexity by
providing real-time optimization solutions for production
4.3. What roles do emerging Industry 4.0 technologies (IoT, AI, CPS) play scheduling and inventory management. However, Binder et al.
in reducing operational complexity, and what new complexity issues arise [46], Gualtieri et al. [53], and Su et al. [65] caution that AI in­
due to their adoption? troduces new complexities, such as the need to explain automated
decisions and manage integration with pre-existing systems.
Adopting emerging Industry 4.0 technologies, such as IoT, AI, and (iii) CPS are essential for synchronizing and integrating operations in
CPS, plays a dual role in managing operational complexity in real-time, reducing operational complexity by enabling rapid and
manufacturing systems. coordinated response to changes in demand or production con­
ditions [46,51]. Johansson et al. [52] emphasize that CPS con­
(i) The IoT plays a crucial role in reducing operational complexity nect the physical world with information systems, facilitating
by improving the visibility and traceability of manufacturing more precise and adaptive process control. However, as Ribeiro
processes. According to Alkan et al. [47] and Ullah [64], imple­ and Hochwallner [63], Shott et al. (2020), Su et al. [65], Wang
menting sensors and connected devices enables the real-time et al. [67] and Zhu et al. [68] point out, the complexity of inte­
monitoring of operations, which facilitates identifying bottle­ grating SCPs with systems of different generations and technol­
necks and optimizing workflows. Guo et al. [50] add that IoT ogies can present significant technical challenges, including
integration provides detailed data on equipment performance, interoperability and security issues.
enabling predictive maintenance and thus reducing unplanned
downtime. However, Binder et al. [46] point out that the large Four problems are identified regarding the new complexity problems
amount of data generated by IoT can lead to information overload emerging with adopting Industry 4.0 technologies.
if not adequately managed, complicating decision-making rather
than simplifying it.

9
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

Table 3 like Su et al. [65] and Zhu et al. [68] indicate that while data can
Impact of industry 4.0 on complexity management. provide valuable insights, managing large volumes of informa­
Question Papers Impact and mechanisms tion requires advanced infrastructure and specific data analytics
skills, which can be a significant challenge for many
Impact of Industry Gualtieri et al. [53]; Ribeiro Increased Operational
4.0 on Complexity and Hochwallner [63] Complexity organizations.
Management Binder et al. [46]; D’addona Complexity in Decision- (iii) Complexity in Cybersecurity: the expanded interconnectedness
[48]; Guo et al. (20239; making and digitization of manufacturing systems increases exposure to
Riesener et al. [57]; Zhu et al. cybersecurity risks [49]. According to Ribeiro and Hochwallner
[68]
Binder et al. [46]; Guo et al. Challenges in the
[63], introducing technologies such as CPS and IoT creates
[50]; Estrada et al. [54] Integration of additional points of vulnerability that cyber-attacks can exploit,
Heterogeneous compromising system integrity and operational continuity. This
Technologies increased attack surface adds significant complexity to security
Binder et al. [46]; Estrada Organizational and
management, requiring new protection and response strategies.
et al. [54] Change Management
Implications (iv) The Impact on Workforce and Change Management:
Franke et al. [49]; Ribeiro Increased Security emerging technologies also impact organizational complexity,
and Hochwallner [63] Complexity especially concerning workforce and change management [46,
Mechanisms that Binder et al. [46]; Johansson Implementation of Cyber- 54]. According to Guo et al. [50], Estrada et al. [54], Puttero et al.
Facilitate et al. [52]; Estrada et al. [54]; Physical Systems and
Complexity Gejo et al. [60]; Ribeiro and Digital Twins
[61], Ribeiro and Hochwallner [63], Su et al. [65] and Zhu et al.
Management Hochwallner [63]; Ullah [68], advanced automation and AI can lead to a reduction in the
[64]; Su et al. [65]; Zhu et al. need for repetitive tasks, but also create an increasing demand for
[68] digital and analytical skills, complicating human resource
Su et al. [65]; Zhu et al. [68] Advanced Analytics and
management.
Big Data
Binder et al. [46]; Guo et al. Standardization and
[50]; Estrada et al. [54]; Interoperability Protocols 4.4. How does the lack of a comprehensive metric framework for
Tibazarwa [66] complexity in manufacturing systems affect the development of effective
Guo et al. [50]; Estrada et al. Automation and
management strategies under the Industry 4.0 paradigm?
[54]; Puttero et al. [61]; Advanced Robotics
Ribeiro and Hochwallner
[63]; Su et al. [65]; Zhu et al. The lack of a comprehensive metric framework for measuring
[68] complexity in manufacturing systems represents a critical gap that
directly affects the ability of companies to develop effective manage­
ment strategies under the Industry 4.0 paradigm. Without adequate
Table 4 metrics, organizations will present:
Challenges and strategies for complexity management in industry 4.0.
Challenges Papers Strategies Papers
(i) Limitations in assessing Operational Complexity: according
to Estrada et al. [54] and Su et al. [65], companies face significant
Lack of Binder et al. [46]; Development of Gualtieri et al.
challenges in identifying sources of inefficiency and operational
Standardized Ribeiro and Metrics [53]; Mourtzis
Metrics Hochwallner et al. [59]; bottlenecks without a clear and quantifiable understanding of
[63]; Tibazarwa Puttero et al. complexity. Similarly, Binder et al. [46] and Su et al. [65] stress
[66] [61] that complexity stems from product variability and the interac­
Variability and Binder et al. [46]; Implementation of Binder et al. [46]; tion of multiple technologies and systems that must operate
Dynamism in Su et al. [65] Standardized D’addona [48];
Systems Reference Zhu et al. [68]
together harmoniously.
Frameworks (ii) Impact on Decision-making and Process Optimization: in
Interoperability Binder et al. [46]; Advanced Puttero et al. agreement with Binder et al. [46], D’addona [48], Guo et al. [50],
and Integration Guo et al. [50]; Analytics and [61]; Ribeiro and Riesener et al. [57], and Zhu et al. [68], mention that without a
Complexity Estrada et al. Machine Learning Hochwallner
well-defined metric framework, process optimization becomes a
[54] (ML) [63]; Zhu et al.
[68] challenge, as accurate indicators are not available to measure the
Cybersecurity and Franke et al. Cybersecurity Franke et al. impacts of complexity on costs, quality, and efficiency. According
Risk [49]; Ribeiro and Management [49]; Zhu et al. to Martínez [55], this lack hinders the implementation of
Management Hochwallner Strategies [68] continuous improvements, as strategic decisions lack a solid
[63]
Organizational Guo et al. [50]; Training and Gualtieri et al.
quantitative basis.
and Human Riesener et al. Organizational [53] (iii) Difficulties in Strategy Customization and Adaptation: the
Impact [57]; Puttero Development lack of clear complexity metrics prevents organizations from
et al. [61] effectively adapting their strategies. According to Johansson
et al. [52], Martínez [55] and Ribeiro and Hochwallner [63],
companies struggle to balance customization with operational
(i) The Complexity of Integration and Interoperability: even
efficiency without clear guidance on how complexity affects
though Industry 4. 0 technologies such as IoT, AI, and CPS offer
these aspects. On the other hand, Guo et al. [50] and Alaluss et al.
significant benefits, they also generate new forms of complexity,
[58] suggest that a robust metric framework would allow com­
especially in terms of integration and interoperability [46,52,54].
panies to adjust their strategies more precisely and align them
Similarly, Binder et al. [46] and Tibazarwa [66] highlight that the
with the flexibility and resilience objectives demanded by In­
lack of universal standards complicates the implementation of
dustry 4.0.
these technologies at scale, which can lead to inefficiencies and
(iv) Implications for Innovation and Technology Development:
increased costs.
technological innovation requires a detailed understanding of
(ii) Increased Data Complexity: the massive data generation by IoT
how new solutions will affect the complexity of the system as a
and other connected systems introduces a new layer of
whole, and without adequate metrics, investments in new tech­
complexity in data management and analysis [49,50]. Studies
nologies may be ineffective ([48,52] and [66]).

10
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

4.5. How can lessons learned from implementing Industry 4.0 influence technological transformation requires addressing significant challenges,
the transition to Industry 5.0, especially regarding complexity management such as integrating disruptive technologies and cybersecurity. With the
and human-technology integration? progression towards Industry 5.0, the focus on human-technology
collaboration and sustainability is intensifying, underlining the need
Lessons learned from implementing Industry 4.0 provide a valuable to balance automation with humanization and to manage cognitive
roadmap for the transition to Industry 5.0, especially in complexity complexity to adapt to rapid change. This integrated and ethical
management and human-technology integration. The identified needs approach is crucial to effectively leverage technological capabilities in
are: advanced manufacturing, highlighting the importance of cultural and
structural adaptations in organizations in the face of disruptive in­
(i) Interoperability between systems and the adoption of com­ novations (see Fig. 8).
mon standards to facilitate technology integration [46,50,
54]. Lack of interoperability has been identified as a significant 5. Contributions to complexity management
barrier in the implementation of cyber-physical systems (CPS),
IoT, and other advanced technologies [46,54,52,63,68]. Industry In manufacturing systems, complexity can be classified into internal
5.0 will need to build on these learnings, prioritizing the creation and external factors. Internal factors are generated by decisions and
of frameworks that enable seamless integration and effective elements within the organization, such as the production process,
communication between emerging technologies and human product structure, production planning, plant infrastructure, and infor­
systems. mation flow between agents and departments. These factors directly
(ii) Development of human competencies for successful tech­ impact the system’s performance indicators. On the other hand, external
nology adoption [61]. According to Guo et al. [50] and Gualtieri factors are related to the organization’s interaction with its environ­
et al. [53] resistance to change and lack of digital skills have ment, including suppliers, customers, the market, competition, and
delayed the effective adoption of advanced technologies. In­ external regulations. It should be noted that, due to the multidimen­
dustry 5.0, which focuses on human-technology collaboration, sional nature of complexity, some factors may overlap or simultaneously
will need to focus on continuous training and workforce adap­ influence different areas of the system, which increases the challenge of
tation to ensure that humans can work effectively with new managing them. Identifying the predominant factors is key to mitigating
technologies. complexity and optimizing operational efficiency [70,71].
(iii) Cybersecurity development. It has emerged as a key challenge Based on its behavior over time, complexity can be divided into static
[63]. Protection against cyber-attacks and resilience of systems to and dynamic. Static complexity is associated with the system structure,
failures have been identified as critical areas for managing such as the number of machines, resources, or workstations, and
operational complexity [63]. Industry 5.0 must integrate cyber­ generally remains constant over time [72,73]. In contrast, dynamic
security from design and adopt proactive approaches to manage complexity refers to changes in key variables during the production
risks, especially in environments where humans and machines process, such as fluctuations in resource availability, changes in market
work closely together. demand, or variations in productive capabilities [74]. According to the
literature review, internal complexity (involving flows and operations
4.6. How can the transition from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 transform within the company) and dynamic complexity (related to the variability
complexity management in manufacturing systems? of operations over time) prevail in today’s manufacturing systems.
When not properly managed, these complexities can generate uncer­
The transition from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 introduces a pro­ tainty and affect operational and strategic decision-making ([73,75,76];
found change in the management of complexity in manufacturing sys­ Suh 2005; [77]).
tems by focusing on human-machine collaboration and greater This research has revealed the challenges and opportunities inherent
sustainability and resilience of production processes. In Industry 4.0, to complexity management in Industry 4.0 and new areas of interest that
advances in CPS, IoT, and advanced automation have significantly have not yet been sufficiently explored. This section presents the orig­
increased operational and technological complexity [46,52,54,63,68], inal contributions of this review, which are oriented to complement and
particularly in terms of massive data management and the integration of expand the current knowledge. From the study of static and dynamic
heterogeneous systems [46,49,55]. However, Industry 5.0 seeks to bal­ factors that affect complexity in manufacturing systems, key elements
ance this technological complexity by placing humans at the center of are identified, such as the integration of emerging technologies, the
the production system, facilitating interaction and collaboration be­ management of large volumes of data (Big Data), and the increasingly
tween human operators and intelligent machines [61]. relevant role of the interaction between humans and advanced tech­
The implementation of technologies such as AI and ML will continue nologies, particularly in the transition to Industry 5.0. Table 5 clearly
to be crucial to manage the growing amount of data and improve real- shows the identification of the complexity factors of a manufacturing
time decision-making [54,50,61,63,65,68]. However, in Industry 5.0, system from a base or classical perspective developed by the authors
machines are expected to be more autonomous and capable of working themselves [78] to consider a current Industry 4.0 approach and future
more efficiently in collaboration with humans, which poses new chal­ transition to Industry 5.0, leading to a better understanding and devel­
lenges in integrating interfaces and interoperability protocols [61]. opment of more effective strategies to manage such complexity as in­
In addition, Industry 5.0 introduces the need to manage even greater dustrial paradigms evolve.
organizational and social complexity by having to integrate aspects of
human well-being, training, and skills development along with techno­ 6. Future research agenda
logical transformation [46,53,61,69]. Sustainability becomes a critical
component, where reducing environmental impact and the efficient use The findings obtained in this systematic review, together with the
of resources will add new layers of operational complexity [53,63]. limitations detected in the literature analyzed, allow us to outline a
The analysis of 27 studies on complexity management in research agenda aimed at strengthening knowledge and practice around
manufacturing reflects a critical dynamic between the opportunities and the management of complexity in industrial environments under the
challenges emerging from the transitions to Industry 4.0 and 5.0. The Industry 4.0 paradigm and the transition towards Industry 5.0. This
evolution towards advanced systems highlights the importance of agenda does not emerge as a theoretical extrapolation but as an
interconnecting technologies, such as IoT and Big Data, to optimize empirical derivation based on the gaps, inconsistencies, and opportu­
operational efficiency and production flexibility. However, this nities for progress identified in the 27 selected studies. Five key strands

11
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

Fig. 8. Opportunities and challenges in complexity management of manufacturing systems.

are proposed for future exploration: development of integrated metrics, indicate a maturing technology integration that mitigates some of the
longitudinal studies, complexity-performance linkages, hybrid human- complexity challenges in manufacturing.
technology frameworks, and sectoral or regional comparative studies. Discussion of the results from the research questions reveals a com­
Table 6 summarizes these strategic research thrusts. plex and multifaceted picture that highlights opportunities and critical
challenges in the evolution of modern manufacturing systems. The
7. Conclusions findings reaffirm prior insights established in the literature, such as
those by Bueno, Godinho Filho, and Frank [79], which emphasize the
Managing complexity in the Industry 4.0 era is crucial due to the role of Industry 4.0 technologies—including IoT, AI, and CPS—in syn­
rapid technological evolution and increasing interconnectivity of pro­ chronizing operations and enhancing real-time responsiveness. How­
duction systems. Emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things, ever, this study extends that discussion by offering a more granular
Artificial intelligence, and Cyber-Physical Systems have transformed interpretation of complexity management. Specifically, it links the
factories into smart environments, enabling greater flexibility and mass adoption of these technologies to different dimensions of complex­
customization. However, these innovations also increase operational ity—technical, organizational, and strategic—and highlights the
complexity, which, if not properly managed, can lead to inefficiencies, persistent lack of standardized metric frameworks, which continues to
cybersecurity risks, and difficulties in system integration. The present limit their integration into structured and effective management prac­
research comprehensively addresses the challenges and opportunities of tices. On the other hand, the transition to Industry 5.0, which empha­
complexity management in manufacturing systems under the Industry sizes human-technology integration, could benefit significantly from the
4.0 paradigm. Through a systematic review based on the PRISMA lessons learned in Industry 4.0, particularly in managing complexity and
methodology, 61,360 initial papers were identified, which, after suc­ promoting a more human-centered approach, where human-technology
cessive filtering and quality assessments, were reduced to 27 key studies. collaboration will be key to transforming this type of approach.
Consequently, a quality assessment was made based on seven (7) Looking ahead to the fifth industrial revolution, complexity man­
methodological criteria, providing a solid basis for answering the six (6) agement in Industry 4.0 and its transition to Industry 5.0 is emerging as
research questions posed. In a general way, the findings evidence that a crucial area of research and development, with profound implications
the last years have been marked by the great interest of the scientific and for advanced manufacturing. Future research lines should focus on
business community towards complexity and Industry 4.0 in creating comprehensive and standardized metric frameworks for
manufacturing systems. Between 2017 and 2022, high peaks suggest a complexity assessment, which address technical but also human and
period of intense technological transformation or changes in the market organizational aspects. Integrating emerging technologies, such as
that contributed to an increase in the complexity of the processes. After artificial intelligence, collaborative robotics, and augmented reality, is
2022, Industry 4.0 maintains a stable growth trajectory, which could expected to play a key role in streamlining complex processes and

12
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

Table 5 Table 6
Complexity factors in manufacturing systems. Summarizes the five strategic research lines derived from this review.
Complexity Type Static Dynamic Future Research Line Justification from the Recommended
Literature Research Type
Internal Traditional # Machines; # Product volume;
Materials; # Work Employee experiences; 1. Integrated metrics for Lack of standardized and Model development,
stations; # Process steps; Employee availability; complexity validated measurement empirical validation
# Parts per product; # Production space; frameworks [23,27]
Work plans; # Capacity; Size of the 2. Longitudinal studies in Dominance of short-term Longitudinal case
Production processes; # company; Availability of real manufacturing or conceptual studies [29, studies, action research
Information systems; # information; Machine contexts 36]
Employees; # Allocation availability; Change in 3. Link between Limited empirical Quantitative analysis,
of resources; # Product technique and procedure; complexity and evidence linking statistical modeling
generations; # Product Product information. performance indicators complexity with
groups; # Modifications. operational KPIs [21,19]
Industry # Information from Technological advances; 4. Human–technology Rise of human-centered Exploratory studies,
4.0 databases (Big Data); # Technological hybrid frameworks design in production participatory
Cyber-physical systems integration (IoT, AI, (Industry 5.0) systems [8,24] framework
(CPS); # Digital assets CPS); Complexity of development
(connected devices and interoperability between 5. Cross-sector and cross- Scarcity of studies Multilevel or cross-
sensors); # Advanced different technologies; regional comparative comparing industrial and cultural comparative
analysis algorithms. Implementation of real- studies regional complexity studies
time data management profiles [37]
systems.
Industry # Data generated by Evolution in human-
5.0 human-machine technology integration; primary data collection or experiments on humans or animals were
interaction; # Human- System adaptability to conducted during the research process.
robot collaborative new human capabilities;
devices; # Infrastructure Human-centered
for collaborative technological CRediT authorship contribution statement
systems; # innovations; Variability
Interconnected data in AI-assisted decision-
Germán Herrera-Vidal: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
systems. making.
External Traditional # Customers; # Customer requirements; original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptu­
Suppliers. Market change; alization. Jairo R. Coronado-Hernández: Visualization, Supervision,
Technological changes; Resources, Project administration, Data curation. Julien Maheut:
Sales market; Market
Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Inves­
volume; Purchase
market; Competition.
tigation, Funding acquisition.
Industry # Digitally Changes in market
4.0 interconnected demand due to
suppliers; # Customers digitalization; Declaration of competing interest
connected to digital Technology-driven
platforms; # Digital market innovations;
sales channels. Evolving customer needs
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
and preferences. lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Industry # Collaborative Changes in sustainability Julien Maheut reports financial support was provided by Universitat
5.0 ecosystems between and responsibility Politècnica de València (UPV). Julien Maheut reports a relationship with
companies; # Network expectations; Adaptation
Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) that includes: employment.
of global suppliers with to global regulatory
access to 5.0 changes; Stricter social The authors declare that they have no known competing financial in­
technologies; # and regulatory terests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Collaborative work requirements the work reported in this paper. If there are other authors, they declare
ecosystems between (sustainability). that they have no known competing financial interests or personal re­
humans and robots.
lationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
improving real-time decision-making. However, this integration must be
accompanied by a systematic approach to mitigate associated risks, such Funding acknowledgement
as cybersecurity and organizational change management.
While this study primarily focuses on complexity management This research is not funded by any organization or institute. This
within the framework of Industry 4.0, the discussion opens the door to work was supported by the Vice-Rectorate for Research of the Uni­
future research aligned with the emerging paradigm of Industry 5.0. The versitat Politècnica de València (PAID-11-23), through the project
latter brings new challenges and opportunities, particularly in terms of entitled: Diversity management in personal skills in task assignment in
human-technology integration. Although Industry 5.0 is not directly highly competitive productive environments.
analyzed in this review, its inclusion as part of the future research
agenda reflects a natural evolution of the findings, especially concerning Data availability
the need for adaptive, human-centered complexity management
frameworks. No data was used for the research described in the article.

Ethical statement References

The ethical statement has no applicability to the research conducted. [1] W. ElMaraghy, H. ElMaraghy, T. Tomiyama, L. Monostori, Complexity in
The study focused on a literature review methodology, where 61,360 engineering design and manufacturing, CIRP Ann. – Manuf. Technol. 61 (2012)
793–814, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2012.05.001.
initial articles were screened; through a robust and exploratory analysis [2] Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., Helbig, J., Hellinger, A., Stumpf, M.A.V., Treugut, L.,
of academic and scientific papers, 27 key studies were obtained. No Blasco, J., Galloway, H., Findeklee, U. 2013. “Securing the future of german

13
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

manufacturing industry: recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative [31] L. Monostori, B. Kádár, T. Bauernhansl, S. Kondoh, S. Kumara, G. Reinhart,
Industrıe 4.0”. Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. K. Ueda, Cyber-physical systems in manufacturing, Cirp Ann. 65 (2) (2016)
[3] H. Fatorachian, H. Kazemi, Impact of industry 4.0 on supply chain performance, 621–641, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2016.06.005.
Prod. Plan. Control 32 (1) (2021) 63–81, https://doi.org/10.1080/ [32] H. Lasi, P. Fettke, H.G. Kemper, T. Feld, M. Hoffmann, Industry 4.0, Bus. Inf. Syst.
09537287.2020.1712487. Eng. 6 (2014) 239–242, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4.
[4] M. Robert, P. Giuliani, C. Gurau, Implementing industry 4.0 real-time performance [33] M. Hermann, T. Pentek, B. Otto, Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios, in:
management systems: the case of Schneider Electric, Prod. Plan. Control 33 (2-3) 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE,
(2022) 244–260, https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1810761. 2016, pp. 3928–3937, https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.488.
[5] L.D. Xu, E.L. Xu, L. Li, Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends, Int. J. Prod. [34] M. Brettel, N. Friederichsen, M. Keller, M. Rosenberg, How virtualization,
Res. 56 (8) (2018) 2941–2962, https://doi.org/10.1080/ decentralization and network building change the manufacturing landscape: an
00207543.2018.1444806. industry 4.0 perspective, Int. J. Inf. Commun. Eng. 8 (1) (2014) 37–44.
[6] S. Wang, J. Wan, D. Zhang, D. Li, C. Zhang, Towards smart factory for Industry 4.0: [35] P. Schneider, Managerial challenges of industry 4.0: an empirically backed
a self-organized multi-agent system with big data based feedback and coordination, research agenda for a nascent field, Rev. Manag. Sci. 12 (3) (2018) 803–848,
Comput. Netw. 101 (2016) 158–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0283-2.
comnet.2015.12.017. [36] J.M. Müller, J.W. Veile, K.I. Voigt, Prerequisites and incentives for digital
[7] D. Kolberg, D. Zühlke, Lean automation enabled by industry 4.0 technologies, information sharing in Industry 4.0–An international comparison across data types,
IFAC-Pap. 48 (3) (2015) 1870–1875, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Comput. Ind. Eng. 148 (2020) 106733, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ifacol.2015.06.359. cie.2020.106733.
[8] A. Correia de Barros, Inclusive design within Industry 4.0: a literature review with [37] Geissbauer, R., Vedso, J., & Schrauf, S. 2016. “Industry 4.0: building the digital
an exploration of the concept of complexity, Des. J. 25 (5) (2022) 849–866, enterprise”.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2022.2081307. [38] C. Sohrabi, T. Franchi, G. Mathew, A. Kerwan, M. Nicola, M. Griffin, R. Agha,
[9] A. Adriaensen, W. Decré, L. Pintelon, Can complexity-thinking methods contribute PRISMA 2020 statement: what’s new and the importance of reporting guidelines,
to improving occupational safety in Industry 4.0? A review of safety analysis Int. J. Surg. 88 (2021) 105918, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105918.
methods and their concepts, Safety 5 (4) (2019) 65, https://doi.org/10.3390/ [39] A.S. Albahri, J.K. Alwan, Z.K. Taha, S.F. Ismail, R.A. Hamid, A. Zaidan, M.
safety5040065. A. Alsalem, IoT-based telemedicine for disease prevention and health promotion:
[10] A. Grübner, Bewa¨ltigung markinduzierter Komplexita¨t in der industriellen state-of-the-art, J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 173 (2021) 102873, https://doi.org/
fertigung: Theoretische ansa¨tze und empirische ergebnisse des International 10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102873.
Manufacturing Strategy Survey. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, 2007. [40] A.S. Albahri, A.M. Duhaim, M.A. Fadhel, A. Alnoor, N.S. Baqer, L. Alzubaidi,
[11] Pfeifer, W. 1989. “Etymologisches wo¨rterbuch des deutschen”. Akademie-Verlag, M. Deveci, A systematic review of trustworthy and explainable artificial
Berlin. intelligence in healthcare: assessment of quality, bias risk, and data fusion, Inf.
[12] Cambridge Dictionary. 2024. Definition of complex. https://dictionary.cambridge. Fusion 96 (2023) 156–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.03.008.
org. [41] B. Kitchenham, S. Charters, Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews
[13] W.R. Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman and Hall, Londres, 1956. in software engineering. Software Engineering Group, School of Computer Science
[14] H. Simon, The architecture of complexity, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 106 (1962) and Mathematics, Keele University, 2007, pp. 1–57.
467–482, 6, December. [42] T. Dybå, T. Dingsøyr, Empirical studies of agile software development: A
[15] F.E. Yates, Complexity and the limits to knowledge, Am. J. Physiol.-Regul. Integr. systematic review, Inf. Softw. Technol. 50 (9-10) (2008) 833–859, https://doi.org/
Comp. Physiol. 235 (5) (1978), https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.1978.235.5. 10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006.
R201. R201-R204. [43] A. Ma, A. Nassehi, C. Snider, Embracing complicatedness and complexity with
[16] Y. Bar-Ham, in: P. Books (Ed.), Dynamics of Complex Systems, Massachussets, Anarchic manufacturing, Procedia Manuf. 28 (2019) 51–56, https://doi.org/
1992. 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.12.009.
[17] L. Qvortrup, Understanding new digital media: medium theory or complexity [44] H. Mothes, No-regret solutions–modular production concepts for times of
theory? Eur. J. Commun. 21 (3) (2006) 345–356, https://doi.org/10.1177/ complexity and uncertainty, ChemBioEng. Rev. 2 (6) (2015) 423–435, https://doi.
0267323106066639. org/10.1002/cben.201500023.
[18] Hitomi, K. 2017. “Manufacturing systems engineering: a unified approach to [45] T. Bauernhansl, A. Schatz, J. Jäger, Complexity management—Industry 4.0 and the
manufacturing technology, production management and industrial economics”. consequences: new challenges for sociotechnical production systems|[Komplexität
Routledge. bewirtschaften–Industrie 4.0 und die Folgen: neue Herausforderungen für sozio-
[19] G. Schuh, J. Hoffmann, M. Gruber, V. Zeller, Managing IT complexity in the technische Produktionssysteme], ZWF Z. fuer Wirtsch. Fabr. 109 (5) (2014)
manufacturing industry”. An agenda for action, J. Syst. Cybern. Inform. 15 (2) 347–350.
(2017) 61–65. [46] C. Binder, C. Neureiter, A. Lüder, Towards a domain-specific approach enabling
[20] H.J. Warnecke, M. Hüser, Lean production, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 41 (1-3) (1995) tool-supported model-based systems engineering of complex industrial internet-of-
37–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-5273(95)00080-1. things applications, Systems 9 (2) (2021) 21, https://doi.org/10.3390/
[21] X.W. Chen, S.Y. Nof, Conflict and error prevention and detection in complex systems9020021.
networks, Automatica 48 (5) (2012) 770–778, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [47] B. Alkan, D. Vera, M. Ahmad, B. Ahmad, R. Harrison, Design evaluation of
automatica.2012.02.030. automated manufacturing processes based on complexity of control logic, Proc.
[22] X. Zhu, S.J. Hu, Y. Koren, N. Huang, A complexity model for sequence planning in Cirp 50 (2016) 141–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.031.
mixed-model assembly lines, J. Manuf. Syst. 31 (2) (2012) 121–130, https://doi. [48] D.M D’Addona, Emergent synthetic approach for management of complexity in
org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2011.07.006. production systems, Cogent Eng. 6 (1) (2019) 1684174, https://doi.org/10.1080/
[23] A.M. Deif, H.A. ElMaraghy, Modelling and analysis of dynamic capacity complexity 23311916.2019.1684174.
in multi-stage production, Prod. Plan. Control 20 (8) (2009) 737–749, https://doi. [49] J. Franke, J. Merhof, S. Hopfensitz, Einsatz von dezentralen multiagentensystemen,
org/10.1080/09537280903119072. Z. Wirtsch. Fabr. 105 (12) (2010) 1075–1078, https://doi.org/10.3139/
[24] G.H. Vidal, J.R.C. Hernández, C. Minnaard, Modeling and statistical analysis of 104.110452.
complexity in manufacturing systems under flow shop and hybrid environments, [50] Z. Guo, Y. Zhang, S. Liu, X.V. Wang, L. Wang, Exploring self-organization and self-
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2021) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021- adaption for smart manufacturing complex networks, Front. Eng. Manag. 10 (2)
08028-9. (2023) 206–222, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-022-0225-1.
[25] H.P. Wiendahl, H.A. ElMaraghy, P. Nyhuis, M.F. Zäh, H.H. Wiendahl, N. Duffie, [51] H. Jemai, A. Badri, N.B. Fredj, Towards better understanding of the complex
M. Brieke, Changeable manufacturing-classification, design and operation, CIRP industrial systems: case of production systems, Int. Rev. Appl. Sci. Eng. 14 (3)
ann. 56 (2) (2007) 783–809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2007.10.003. (2023) 383–391, https://doi.org/10.1556/1848.2023.00606.
[26] G. Herrera-Vidal, J.R. Coronado-Hernández, B.P. Martínez Paredes, B.O. Sánchez [52] S. Johansson, M. Kullström, J. Björk, A. Karlsson, S. Nilsson, Digital production
Ramos, D.M. Sierra, Systematic configurator for complexity management in innovation projects–the applicability of managerial controls under high levels of
manufacturing systems, Entropy 26 (9) (2024) 747, https://doi.org/10.3390/ complexity and uncertainty, J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 32 (3) (2020) 772–794,
e26090747. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-04-2019-0145.
[27] G.H. Vidal, J.R. Coronado-Hernández, C. Minnaard, Measuring manufacturing [53] L. Gualtieri, M. Öhler, A. Revolti, P. Dallasega, A visual management and
system complexity: a literature review, J. Intell. Manuf. 34 (7) (2023) 2865–2888, augmented-reality-based training module for the enhancement of short and long-
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-022-01974-5. term procedural knowledge retention in complex machinery setup, Comput. Ind.
[28] G.H. Vidal, J.R.C. Hernández, C. Minnaard, A new perspective on measuring Eng. 196 (2024) 110478, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110478.
entropic complexity in manufacturing systems, Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. [54] L.A. Estrada-Jimenez, T. Pulikottil, R.S. Peres, S. Nikghadam-Hojjati, J. Barata,
(IJIDeM) 18 (1) (2024) 191–201, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-023-01462-x. Complexity theory and self-organization in cyber-physical production systems,
[29] A. Moeuf, R. Pellerin, S. Lamouri, S. Tamayo-Giraldo, R. Barbaray, The industrial Procedia CIRP 104 (2021) 1831–1836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0, Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (3) (2018) procir.2021.11.309.
1118–1136, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1372647. [55] C. Martínez-Olvera, An entropy-based formulation for assessing the complexity
[30] 13(1) H. Kagermann, W.D. Lukas, W. Wahlster, Industrie 4.0: mit dem internet der level of a mass customization industry 4.0 environment, Math. Probl. Eng. 2020 (1)
dinge auf dem weg zur 4, in: K. Schwab (Ed.), Industriellen Revolution. VDI (2020) 6376010, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6376010.
Nachrichten, Crown Currency, 2011, pp. 2–3, 13(1)2017The fourth industrial [56] M. Riesener, C. Dölle, A. Keuper, M. Fruntke, G. Schuh, Quantification of
revolution. complexity in cyber-physical systems based on key figures, Procedia CIRP 100
(2021) 445–450, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.05.102.

14
G. Herrera-Vidal et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105329

[57] M. Riesener, M. Kuhn, A. Keuper, J. Schuhmacher, G. Schuh, Complexity-oriented [68] X. Zhu, F. Qiao, Q. Cao, Industrial big data–based scheduling modeling framework
design for cyber-physical systems, Procedia CIRP 109 (2022) 203–208, https://doi. for complex manufacturing system, Adv. Mech. Eng. 9 (8) (2017)
org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.237. 1687814017726289, https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814017726289.
[58] M. Alaluss, C. Drechsler, R. Kurth, A. Mauersberger, S. Ihlenfeldt, M. Marré, [69] N. Dacre, J. Yan, R. Frei, M.K.S. Al-Mhdawi, H. Dong, Advancing sustainable
R. Labs, Usage-based leasing of complex manufacturing systems: a method to manufacturing: a systematic exploration of industry 5.0 supply chains for
transform current ownership-based into pay-per-use business models, Procedia sustainability, human-centricity, and resilience, Prod. Plan. Control (2024) 1–30,
CIRP 107 (2022) 1238–1244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2024.2380361.
[59] D. Mourtzis, S. Fotia, N. Boli, E. Vlachou, Modelling and quantification of industry [70] A. Calinescu, J. Efstathiou, J. Bermejo, J. Schirn, Assessing decision-making and
4.0 manufacturing complexity based on information theory: a robotics case study, process complexity in a manufacturer through simulation, IFAC Proc. Vol. 30 (24)
Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (22) (2019) 6908–6921, https://doi.org/10.1080/ (1997 a) 149–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)42245-2.
00207543.2019.1571686. [71] A. Calinescu, J. Efstathiou, J. Bermejo, J. Schirn, Modelling and simulation of a real
[60] J. Gejo-García, J. Reschke, S. Gallego-García, M. García-García, Development of a complex process-based manufacturing system, in: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second
system dynamics simulation for assessing manufacturing systems based on the International Matador Conference, Palgrave, London, 1997 b, pp. 137–142,
digital twin concept, Appl. Sci. 12 (4) (2022) 2095, https://doi.org/10.3390/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14620-8_22.
app12042095. [72] C.C. Bozarth, D.P. Warsing, B.B. Flynn, E.J. Flynn, The impact of supply chain
[61] S. Puttero, E. Verna, G. Genta, M. Galetto, Impact of product family complexity on complexity on manufacturing plant performance, J. Oper. Manag. 27 (1) (2009)
process performance in electronic component assembly, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. 78–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.07.003.
Technol. 132 (5) (2024) 2907–2922, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-13575- [73] Gaio, L., Gino, F., & Zaninotto, E. 2002. “I sistemi di produzione. Manuale per la
y. gestione operativa dell’impresa” (pp. 1-411). Carocci.
[62] E. Rauch, P. Dallasega, D.T. Matt, Complexity reduction in engineer-to-order [74] F. Isik, An entropy-based approach for measuring complexity in supply chains, Int.
industry through real-time capable production planning and control, Prod. Eng. 12 J. Prod. Res. 48 (12) (2010) 3681–3696, https://doi.org/10.1080/
(3) (2018) 341–352, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-018-0809-0. 00207540902810593.
[63] L. Ribeiro, M. Hochwallner, On the design complexity of cyberphysical production [75] A.V. Deshmukh, J.J. Talavage, M.M. Barash, Complexity in manufacturing systems,
systems, Complexity 2018 (1) (2018) 4632195, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/ part 1: analysis of static complexity, IIE Trans. 30 (7) (1998) 645–655, https://doi.
4632195. org/10.1080/07408179808966508.
[64] A.S. Ullah, Modeling and simulation of complex manufacturing phenomena using [76] G. Frizelle, E. Woodcock, Measuring complexity as an aid to developing
sensor signals from the perspective of industry 4.0, Adv. Eng. Inform. 39 (2019) operational strategy, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 15 (5) (1995) 26–39, https://doi.
1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2018.11.003. org/10.1108/01443579510083640.
[65] X. Su, J. Lu, C. Chen, J. Yu, W. Ji, Dynamic bottleneck identification of [77] N. Papakostas, K. Efthymiou, D. Mourtzis, G. Chryssolouris, Modelling the
manufacturing resources in complex manufacturing system, Appl. Sci. 12 (9) complexity of manufacturing systems using nonlinear dynamics approaches, CIRP
(2022) 4195, https://doi.org/10.3390/app12094195. Ann. 58 (1) (2009) 437–440, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2009.03.032.
[66] A. Tibazarwa, Strategic integration for hardware and software convergence [78] G.H. Vidal, J.R.C. Hernández, Study of the effects of complexity on the
complexity, IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 49 (3) (2021) 92–102, https://doi.org/ manufacturing sector, Prod. Eng. 15 (2021) 69–78, https://doi.org/10.1007/
10.1109/EMR.2021.3089475. s11740-020-01014-2.
[67] R. Wang, J. Milisavljevic-Syed, L. Guo, Y. Huang, G. Wang, Knowledge-based [79] M. Godinho Filho, A.G. Frank, Smart production planning and control in the
design guidance system for cloud-based decision support in the design of complex industry 4.0 context: a systematic literature review, Comput. Ind. Eng. 149 (2020)
engineered systems, J. Mech. Des. 143 (7) (2021) 072001, https://doi.org/ 106774.
10.1115/1.4050247.

15