4.7 Article

Electric utility 4.0: Trends and challenges towards process safety and environmental protection

期刊

PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
卷 117, 期 -, 页码 593-605

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2018.05.027

关键词

Environmental protection; Process safety; Electric utility; Electric system; Industry 4.0; Soft System Methodology (SSM); Dynamic capabilities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The traditional manufacturing business model is changing for new emerging models. Many changes are related to the industry 4.0 challenge and among them there is a concern regarding how industries will meet the objectives of sustainable operations, especially on that of environmental protection and process safety. Some industries are making great efforts to get aligned with the industry 4.0 paradigm, and for the Electric System Industry, it is no different. Because of its strategic and environmental importance, the electric system industry must be investigated. In this article we used qualitative research based on a systemic approach, using the Soft System Methodology (SSM) to address the challenges brought by the industry 4.0 paradigm in the electric system industry in Brazil, focusing on the topic of environmental protection and process safety. Moreover, we point out important capabilities needed by these companies to keep up with the new industrial revolution. Results from the SSM have exposed important management gaps and hence have shown new possible management models that can contribute to the modernization of the electric utilities in Brazil, making these industries more sustainable. In fact, it is imperative for companies to detail the organizational capabilities they will need to thrive in the business process. Therefore, we conclude the paper by indicating the three main dynamic capabilities that have emerged: new policies to enable innovation, bureaucracy reduction, and investments in education. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据