# A Framework for Assessing Manufacturing SMEs Industry 4.0 Maturity
## 5 Discussion  
### Framework Application and Comparison  
To emphasize this model's contribution to the literature, the authors performed an I4.0 level assessment of a one-of-a-kind production SME using the proposed model and the IMPULS model [3], referred as the most comprehensive and incisive model found in the literature by [PERSON] et al. in 2016 [32] and the most transparent and detailed model presented in the literature, according to [PERSON] et al. in 2017 [26]. The company chosen to apply the model has neither repetitive production nor an assembly line. The company also does not possess any machines, such as CNCs or molding machines. The workforce of the shop floor is responsible for value creation, and the only support machines that exist are tools such as screwdrivers and grinding machines. At the first glance, this company does not seem suitable to embark on the endeavour that I4.0 is. In fact, [PERSON] et al., 2017 [49] pointed out in their work that repetitive production companies have an easier transition to I4.0 than non-repetitive production enterprises. It is important to underline that the proposed model was not in any way developed specifically for this company. For the assessment of this company's maturity level, a multi-disciplinary team constituted of collaborators from the top management all the way to the shop floor was chosen to answer the questionnaire. This process was closely followed by the authors of this investigation to ensure the understanding of all items. Figure 5: **(a)** Example of a company’s dimensions maturity level in I4. **(b)** Example of a company’s sub-dimensions maturity level in I4.0. After the attribution of this company's I4.0 maturity level, the feedback received from the top management collaborator was encouraging. On the one hand, the collaborator affirmed that he could confirm his company is in the measured maturity level, which is a first confirmation that the assessed level is an accurate representation of the company's maturity. On the other hand, the expected company's maturity level was lower than the one presented, in fact, if a different maturity model was used, the maturity level would have been indeed lower (see next section). This feedback gives a first hint that the developed model is targeted for companies being introduced to I4.0. The first and second rows of Table 4 show the company's different maturity levels for each of the models. For a proper comparison of both models, the weight scale used by [3]'s model was used to assemble the developed model's dimensions into an overall maturity level. This weight scale represents the weight that each dimension has in the overall maturity level (output). Each model can have its own, but since we are comparing our proposed model with [3]'s model, this model's weight scale is used (presented in the third row of Table 4). The calculations of the weight of each dimension of both models are presented in the fourth and fifth line of Table 4. The overall maturity level of the assessed company measured by [3]'s model is \"0.383\", and in the proposed model, it is \"1.961\". This means that for [3]'s model, this company is in maturity level 0, thus not belonging to the I4.0 company spectrum, but for the proposed model, this company is in maturity level 3 when considering both the same weight scale and the six categories used in IMPULS work. Being maturity level \"5\", the representation of the full implementation of I4.0, the company is then considered to be 7,65% in this endeavor by the [3] model and 39.18% as measured by the developed model. These findings highlight the differences between both models in terms of their assessment range. Furthermore, it is possible to conclude in this particular case that on the one hand, all of the companies that have the same or a lower level of maturity in the [3] model are considered to be in the same level of maturity, which is level 0. However, on the other hand, these same companies would be divided into three different groups in the developed model.