# A Taxonomy of Technologies for Human-Centred Logistics 4.0
## 4 Taxonomy of Technology
### Discussion  
From an initial analysis of the taxonomy, two main results became immediately apparent. In some activities, there is a more significant number of technologies adopted, and, in general, they are applied more for the management of material flows than for information flows. The first result is not surprising, as picking and material handling activities are, in fact, primarily repetitive and dangerous activities (especially material handling, when materials are handled at high altitudes) for which human intervention is limited [34]. This motivation explains the presence of a large number of automation-related technologies in both areas. However, in some subtasks related to picking (e.g., item identification and recording) and material handling (e.g., rapid and precision movements, loading-unloading), human intervention is still needed for its peculiar characteristics (e.g., articulated movements, cognitive skills). Indeed, the technologies are not yet mature enough to carry out specific operations with precision, speed and (above all) with a minimum space requirement (compared, for example, to the requirement for a collaborative or autonomous robot to carry out the same activities).  
As regards the preponderance of applications for the management of material flows compared to the management of information flows, we can say that the cause is mainly to be found in the level of maturity of the technologies themselves. It is thought that in the future, with the development of enabling accessory and infrastructure technologies (such as 5G and blockchain) there will be an increasing number of applications technologies for the support of information flows in storage. It is also necessary to highlight that not all the technologies in Table 4 have reached the same level of maturity. For some technologies, such as drones and collaborative robots, there are ways of use still not fully explored. Another element that puts a brake on developing other technologies for flow management is still a low level of integration between different technologies. Adopting standards is still a barrier to integration between different management software with different functionalities, between management systems and hardware technologies, and between hardware technologies themselves [47]. Even if an increasing number of important steps are being taken to evolve the traditional factory into a smart factory, there are still some problems to solve, especially, as mentioned above, at the level of integration between different technologies. However, the investments in research, the continuous monitoring of pilot applications, the existence of pioneering companies that have already begun to invest in cutting-edge technologies, and the great importance that is increasingly given to the construction of digital supply chains (to create increasingly flexible and efficient supply chains) suggest that soon the technologies adopted for flow management will be more numerous [35].  
Finally, it should be noted that the taxonomy does not show differences between support and automation technologies. There is no preponderance of one dimension over the other. This result happens because, as already found in literature, the two-dimensional typologies are not alternatives to each other but proceed in parallel. The choice of automating or supporting the execution of a particular activity does not depend so much on the degree of maturity reached by the technology that one wishes to apply but on the intrinsic characteristics of that activity and on the impact that these characteristics have on the operator (i.e., human factors) who carries out that activity.