DATA QUALITY
Effectively harnessing
Data Quality Management for
Industry 4.0: A Survey
Diamond Williams and Herman Tang
INTRODUCTION
Industry 4.0 introduces cyber-physical
systems (CPSs) into production systems,
increasing opportunities for intelligence,
automation, and enhanced human-ma-
chine interaction. This enables identity
and communication for every entity in the
value stream and can facilitate IT-enabled
mass customization in manufacturing
(Sanders, Elangeswaran, and Wulfsberg
2016). When processes can more effec-
tively use and incorporate data, workers
and managers are better equipped to
make sound, thorough, data-driven
business decisions.
Industry 4.0 allows for faster response
to customer needs by improving the flex-
ibility, speed, productivity, and quality of
the production process. Similarly, it lays
the foundation for the adoption of new
business models, production processes,
and other innovations. This will enable a
new level of mass customization as more
industrial producers invest in Industry 4.0
technologies to enhance and customize
their offerings (Rüßmann et al. 2015).
This article focuses on three elements
of Industry 4.0: Big Data, CPS, and the
Internet of Things (IoT). These tech-
nologies make it possible to collect data
about production environments that have
previously been inaccessible. This leads to
new opportunities to improve the quality
of production processes, for example, by
reliably forecasting errors from material
handling machines and other processing
equipment, and defects in products (Illés
et al. 2017). At the same time, data quality
issues can impede these goals. This article
examines 51 papers from the academic
and practitioner literature to provide
actionable recommendations for ensuring
data quality in Industry 4.0.
26 | SQP VOL. 22 | NO. 2 | ©2020, ASQ
SUMMARY
DATA QUALITY IN INDUSTRY 4.0
SCENARIOS
In manufacturing, Industry 4.0 technol-
ogies can be used to transform ordinary
machines to self-aware machines that
learn. This improves their overall per-
formance while easing maintenance
management and enabling life cycle
optimization of assets (Imani and
Radziwill 2020). These changes create
an open, smart manufacturing platform
for industrial-networked information,
to include real-time data monitoring,
tracking status and positions of product,
and maintaining instructions to control
production processes (Vaidya, Ambad,
and Bhosle 2018).
This article examines scenarios cata-
lyzed by Industry 4.0 that require greater
attention to data quality management: 1)
the integration of Industry 4.0 into lean;
2) smart factories powered by CPSs; 3) IoT
asset and maintenance optimization; and
4) improving the efficiency of the global
supply chain.
INTEGRATION OF INDUSTRY 4.0
INTO LEAN
Lean is an established concept in
manufacturing. Many organizations
have adopted elements of the Toyota
Production System (TPS), which empha-
sizes reducing waste, just-in-time (JIT)
production, kanban, and other prob-
lem-solving approaches. Lean processes
are more standardized and more trans-
parent, and they reduce activities to only
the essential work (Kolberg and Zühlke
2015). As Industry 4.0 begins to transform
manufacturing organizations, lean tools
the potential of Big Data,
cyber-physical systems
(CPSs), and the Internet of
Things (IoT) to drive success-
ful transformation in manufac-
turing organizations requires
high-quality data. These
elements of Industry 4.0 intro-
duce new challenges related
to increasing dependence on
enormous quantities of data,
including minimizing biases in
data collection, ensuring data
accuracy, and standardizing
processes to remove noise.
This article surveys 51 papers
from the academic and prac-
titioner literature to identify
how select applications of
Industry 4.0 technologies
can be impacted by data
quality. The authors identified
relevant characteristics and
frameworks that reduce the
potential for bad or poor data.
This illustrates how essential it
is for manufacturing organiza-
tions to invest in data quality
assurance while integrating
Industry 4.0 technologies.
KEY WORDS
Big Data, data assessment,
data quality, Industry 4.0,
Internet of Things (IoT), quality
in use, SQuaRE

are being used as entry points to lower the risks associ-
ated with change. For example:
JIT: JIT reduces overproduction by ensuring the
necessary inventory for a process is available when
it is needed. Automated guided vehicles (AGV), for
instance, can transport objects within the material
flow automatically. The use of AGVs can minimize
both human error and empty trips. CPSs and IoT
monitor the condition of the transported goods and
navigate the AGV efficiently, leveraging self-orga-
nization to help build robust logistics networks for
production (Mayr et al. 2018).
Kanban: Kanban promotes continuous flow of
materials and information. In manufacturing, con-
tinuous material flow is achieved by maintaining
a predefined stock level to guarantee an unin-
terrupted supply. Through simulation or virtual
real-time representation of physical objects based
on digital twins, new kanban cycles can be planned
with greater foresight and seamlessly integrated
into the existing production environment. Constant
monitoring of work-in-process is made possible,
while transparency of material movements is
increased (Mayr et al. 2018).
Total productive maintenance (TPM): Several
Industry 4.0 technologies can be used to empower
operators. For example, virtual reality (VR), aug-
mented reality (AR), and head-mounted displays
can facilitate training and be used to deliver clear,
context-rich maintenance instructions. Since
maintenance can involve nonrecurring activities and
tasks that are sensitive to changing conditions, these
technologies can also be used to facilitate interaction
with maintenance experts (Mayr et al. 2018).
The aim for lean integration within Industry 4.0 is to
introduce data reliant technologies that optimize the per-
formance of existing systems. This transition warrants
companies to address the pedigree of the data quality
being used. Without proper data quality management,
even minor errors can accumulate, resulting in revenue
loss, process inefficiency, and failure to comply with
industry and government regulations (Kiel et al. 2017).
SMART FACTORY POWERED BY CYBER-
PHYSICAL SYSTEMS
CPSs are collections of collaborating computational enti-
ties. They are embedded into the surrounding physical
world and its ongoing processes, and they can provide
and use services to access and process information that is
available on local networks or the broader internet. CPSs
are the foundational building blocks for Industry 4.0’s
“smart factory,” and existing technologies can be retrofit-
ted with CPS components.
Data Quality Management for Industry 4.0: A Survey
CPSs can be generally characterized as “physical and
engineered systems whose operations are monitored,
controlled, coordinated, and integrated by a computing
and communicating core” (Monostori et al. 2016). These
researchers conceptualize a CPS in terms of a five-level
architecture (5C) to guide deployment:
Smart connection: This is the foundation for a
CPS. It requires the manufacturing organization to
acquire reliable data from the machinery. Data can be
retrieved directly from sensors, from fixed assets like
CNC machines, or from software systems, including
enterprise resource planning (ERP). A seamless and
tether-free method to manage data acquisition and
a reliable method for transferring data to the central
server is required (Lee, Bagheri, and Kao 2015).
Data-to-information conversion: This is the
second step. Raw data from the machinery are only
as valuable as the actionable insights that can be
gained from them.
Connectivity (cyber): This is the third step of
deploying a CPS. The connected level acts as a cen-
tral information hub. Information is pushed to the
hub from every connected machine on the network,
and analytics are used to extract additional insights
that describe the status and projected states of
individual machines within the system (Lee, Bagh-
eri, and Kao 2015).
Cognition: This is the fourth step. At this level,
proper presentation of analytic information is
provided to users to make decisions. Maintenance
tasks can be more easily determined and prioritized
due to the availability of comparative information
and individual machine statuses (Ahmadi et al. 2017).
Configuration: This is the fifth level of deploying
a CPS. Configuration provides feedback from the
cyber part to the physical part and performs the
supervisory control to help machines self-configure
and adapt. This layer acts as a “resilience control
system” to apply the decisions that are made at the
cognition level to the operation of the machines
(Ahmadi et al. 2017).
Implementing a CPS within manufacturing trans-
forms how data for decision-making are obtained,
analyzed, and shared, creating opportunities for
managers to make better decisions based on analysis of
real-time performance. Making this possible is the intel-
ligent network that supplements physical assets with a
digital representation of that asset (the “digital twin”).
The digital twin is meant to be provided with intelligence
to enable self-awareness, self-comparison, self-man-
agement, and self-adaptivity at an operational and
procedural level. Hence, the physical and cyber contexts
are integrated to act synergistically (Longo, Nicoletti, and
Padovano 2017). These systems generate large amounts
of data, requiring sophisticated technology to handle
www.asq.org | 27
 Data Quality Management for Industry 4.0: A Survey
processing and streaming. When all the details of the
production process are transparent, it can be controlled
and managed more efficiently (Yan et al. 2017).
The digital twin also enables simulation-based optimi-
zation (SBO), which can be used to perform experimental
trials on equipment and policies without negatively
impacting production. Nearly optimal solutions can be
found, reducing the time-consuming aspects of creating
many different what-if scenarios (Goienetxea Uriarte
et al. 2018). New manufacturing facilities are being
designed from the very beginning using SBO to support
the transition from mass production to mass customi-
zation while preserving profitability (Zúñiga, Moris, and
Syberfeldt 2017).
Standards for metadata are particularly critical for
these scenarios. Without standards for metadata, it is a
challenge to incorporate diverse data repositories with
semantics for advanced data analytics (Vaidya, Ambad,
and Bhosle 2018).
INTERNET OF THINGS ASSET AND
MAINTENANCE OPTIMIZATION
Smarter machine maintenance may be one of the biggest
advantages of introducing IoT and other CPSs into
manufacturing environments. Corrective maintenance,
preventive maintenance, and setup time can all be
improved when tools, assets, and software are connected
to the internet directly or through external adapters
(Mourtzis, Vlachou, and Milas 2016).
With Industry 4.0 technologies, the time required to
recognize issues and mobilize for corrective main-
tenance can be greatly reduced. In a smart factory,
when a machine breaks down, it automatically sends
alerts to relevant shop-floor and maintenance per-
sonnel, and sometimes autonomously takes action to
correct the failure.
Preventive maintenance can increase the longevity
and reduce life cycle costs of machinery and other
assets. With more advanced analytics employed on the
Big Data from the machines, machines are equipped
to assess their own health and degradation and can
utilize data from other machines to avoid potential
maintenance issues (Sanders, Elangeswaran, and
Wulfsberg 2016). This may be particularly useful in
resource constrained environments, where preventive
maintenance can be neglected.
Setup time can introduce added costs and variabil-
ity to manufacturing processes, especially during
gauging. Manufacturers rely on methodologies
like single minute exchange of die (SMED) (also
referred to as “quick changeover”) to shorten the
time and identify non-value-added exchanges that
took place during shift and product changes and use
28 | SQP VOL. 22 | NO. 2 | ©2020, ASQ
problem-solving techniques to decrease the time
needed to perform tasks. When radio-frequency
identification (RFID) is used, operations to be per-
formed on a part can be carried with the part. As it
reaches a machine, it communicates which actions
are required. This results in quicker changeover of
machine parameters according to the instructions
read from the part (Sanders, Elangeswaran, and
Wulfsberg 2016).
The enhanced connectedness of Industry 4.0 will
make it possible to gather and analyze data across
machines, enabling faster, more flexible, and more effi-
cient decision making. This in turn will reduce costs (that
can be passed along to the customer via price), increase
manufacturing productivity, foster industrial growth, and
enhance the competitiveness of companies and regions
(Rüßmann et al. 2015).
High-quality data are required for intelligent planning
and control of machines due to the real-time nature of
the tasks (Vaidya, Ambad, and Bhosle 2018). For mainte-
nance activities in particular, it can be difficult to collect,
clean, integrate, and obtain the necessary high-quality
data within a reasonable time frame to generate
actionable insights for operations (Cai and Zhu 2015).
While it is more difficult (and sometimes impossible) to
enhance aging equipment with Industry 4.0 technologies,
operators know how the older machinery works. New
machinery may be better able to support intelligent algo-
rithms and connectivity; however, the time and effort to
train and retool operators with the requisite data literacy
could be prohibitive.
IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF THE GLOBAL
SUPPLY CHAIN
Collecting information about all the components in a
production system (for example, products, machines,
material handling equipment, workers) using IoT can
be used to improve the efficiency of logistics (Illés et al.
2017). When deployed in conjunction with intelligent
systems, IoT can learn from tracking past behaviors.
Improvement is accomplished by greater levels of
tracking and control of inventories, which in turn leads
to decreased delays in fulfillment. This can impact the
entire supply chain, from procurement of raw materials
to production of the product, logistics, and distribution
to customers (Jayaram 2016). In traditional supply
chain management, overstocking, delivery delays, and
stock outs are common. Software systems and Industry
4.0 solutions reduce the complexity and uncertainty in
real supply chains by making information more visible
(Abdel-Basset, Manogaran, and Mohamed 2018).
Pull systems, which help companies produce based
on actual customer demand instead of forecast demand,

are greatly enabled by Industry 4.0. Physical inventory
levels can be controlled using visual management (for
example, number of parts below threshold), triggers in
ERP systems, or e-kanban systems (that can recognize
missing and empty bins automatically from sensor data).
Response time becomes shorter with software triggers,
and shorter yet again with the Industry 4.0 solution.
Charging levels of the bin also can be monitored, and data
can be transmitted wirelessly to an inventory control
system in real time. If the real inventory and value in
manufacturing execution system matches, faults in
production control can be avoided due to lost kanban
(Sanders, Elangeswaran, and Wulfsberg 2016).
Data acquisition is a particularly challenging task in
these scenarios due to data coming from a broad variety
of technologies, machines, sensors, CPS, IoT devices, and
communication networks.
DATA QUALITY MANAGEMENT
For Industry 4.0, the aforementioned scenarios illustrate
that data are the vehicles that drive and sustain its
impact. Therefore, the greatest challenge for Industry 4.0
is ensuring the integrity of the data themselves. None of
the insights made possible by a highly connected, intel-
ligent system will be valuable unless the data that are
recorded from the manufacturing system and its IoT or
CPS endpoints are sound.
The Big Data that are produced in manufacturing
environments are by nature heterogeneous, and data
structures can be complex. Errors, missing information,
inconsistencies, noise, and related issues covered in
previous sections can impact the quality of the insights
that are generated from that data. Data must meet their
users’ needs and be fit for purpose, that is, of high enough
quality to generate useful insights (Taleb, Serhani, and
Dssouli 2018). According to ISO 25012, data quality is
defined as “the capability of data to satisfy stated and
implied needs when used under specified conditions”
(ISO 2008).
Data quality management is, as a result, becoming
increasingly important. A systematic, quality-oriented
approach to data management treats data as an asset and
values them through its life cycle stages from provision-
ing to archival and disposal (Silvola et al. 2016). Data
quality management is a holistic practice that only begins
with initial data quality assessment:
“While measurement is an integral part of the data
quality journey, data quality management involves
much more than measurement. It also involves the
management of people, processes, policies, technol-
ogy, standards, and data within an enterprise. Data
quality management is data, people, process, and
technology intensive, with data being at the core, and
as such to succeed, would need all these elements
Data Quality Management for Industry 4.0: A Survey
to work in an integrated manner to ensure success.”
Mahanti (2019)
Without proper data quality management, even minor
errors can accumulate, potentially resulting in revenue
loss, process inefficiency, and failure to comply with
industry and government regulations (Kiel et al. 2017).
Data quality management thus focuses on providing
superior value to the customer while indirectly improv-
ing the efficiency of processes. Continuous improvement
leads to increased revenues through product reliability
and reduced costs through process efficiency. As a result,
customer satisfaction leads to increased revenues that
enable the firm to gain a competitive advantage (Barrera,
Navarro-Garcia, and Moreno 2015).
Production processes often operate on input obtained
from external sources, which are frequently unknown
in advance. Consequently, the overall quality of the data
within a complex information system can disintegrate
due to a lack of process controls. Because this potential
increases as the variety of data types expands, process
controls on data quality are critical. Most significantly, to
ensure high-quality data, companies need to gain broad
commitment at all levels of the organization to data
quality management principles and develop processes
and programs that reduce data defects over time (Brous,
Janssen, and Vilminko-Heikkinen 2016).
DATA QUALITY METHODOLOGY
If decisions based on the given data are to be trusted by
the organization, the data quality must be acceptable
given the organization’s risk appetite (Marchildon et al.
2018). There are four core activities that are used to make
this happen: 1) state reconstruction and data profiling;
2) data quality measurement or assessment; 3) data
cleansing or improvement; and 4) the establishment of
continuous data quality monitoring.
State reconstructions and data profiling: These
are the activities and processes to determine the
context and metadata of a given dataset (Abedjan,
Golab, and Naumann 2017). State reconstruction
describes the collection of contextual information
on the observed data as well as on the organization
where a data quality project is carried out (Ehrlinger,
Rusz, and Wolfram 2019). Data profiling is essential
prior to any data quality measurement or monitoring
activity. Information gathered during data profiling
includes distinct or missing (null) values, data types
of attributes, or occurring patterns and their fre-
quency (Ehrlinger et al. 2019).
Data measurement or assessment: This focuses
on measurement capabilities of data quality tools,
independent of how the results are interpreted by a
user. This extends the concept of measurement by
evaluating the measurement results and drawing a
www.asq.org | 29
 Data Quality Management for Industry 4.0: A Survey
conclusion about the object of assessment. This stage
provides an initial estimation of data quality and an
impact analysis of data quality problems (Ehrlinger,
Rusz, and Wolfram 2018).
Data cleansing: Data cleansing (also known as
cleaning, scrubbing, or wrangling) is the process
of detecting and correcting incorrect, inaccurate,
irrelevant, or improperly formatted records from
a record set, table, or database. This may require
replacing, modifying, or deleting dirty or coarse data
(Patel 2015). The purpose is to detect and remove
errors and inconsistencies (Cai and Zhu 2015).
Data quality monitoring: This describes contin-
uous monitoring of data according to user defined
constraints (Patel 2015).
The suitability and usefulness of data must be eval-
uated in the context in which the data are supposed to
be used (Gudivada, Apon, and Ding 2017; Juddoo 2015).
Since inadequate and inaccurate data at facilities that are
data driven can create highly visible failures in manufac-
turing processes and issues with product quality, without
data quality assessment, organizations cannot have a
proper understanding of how data quality impacts their
ability to satisfy the market (Mirzaie, Behkamal, and
Paydar 2019).
A data quality methodology that includes these four
stages is important for Industry 4.0 because it ensures
data and metadata best reflect the current-state con-
ditions of processes and machinery. By having sound
information, it becomes easier to understand anomalies
within systems proactively, thus evolving the overall
efficiency and performance.
DATA TYPES
Due to the large variety of sources from which data
are collected and integrated, coupled with their sheer
volume and changing nature, it is often impossible
to globally specify data quality rules. Big Data come
with a major promise: having more data allows the
“data to speak for themselves” instead of relying
on unproven assumptions, weak correlations, or
inference (Saha and Srivastava 2014). Data types
are usually either structured, unstructured, and
semi-structured.
Unstructured data have a structure that is fluid or
flexible and may change from record to record. They
may be textual or non-textual, human or machine
generated, and stored in a non-relational database
like NoSQL (Taleb, Serhani, and Dssouli 2018).
Structured data are stored in regular, predictable
formats that ease retrieval and problem solving.
Relational databases store data in formats specified
by data models.
30 | SQP VOL. 22 | NO. 2 | ©2020, ASQ
Semi-structured data neither conform to the
formal structure of data models associated with
relational databases nor are readied for compu-
tation through tags or metadata. This includes
natural language texts, newspaper articles, con-
versation records, comments, books, and similar
(Batini et al. 2016).
Because the proportion of unstructured to structured
data in industrial applications is very high, it will take a
lot of time to transform unstructured types into struc-
tured types and further process the data. This is a great
challenge to existing techniques for data processing. Data
change very fast, and the timeliness of data is very short,
which necessitates more intensive requirements for
processing (Cai and Zhu 2015).
DATA QUALITY DIMENSIONS
Data quality is a factor throughout the life cycle of the
data, including collection, processing, storage, processing,
internal use, external disclosure, and use in downstream
applications (Hoeren 2018). Each quality dimension
needs different measurement tools, techniques, and
processes, which leads to differences in assessment times,
costs, and human resources.
When data are fit for use, they are able to meet the
requirements of users and stakeholders. For this to occur,
different quality dimensions must be met. The dimen-
sions that are most relevant to the Industry 4.0 scenarios
described previously are (Cappiello, Sama, and Vitali
2018; Cai and Zhu 2015):
Accuracy refers to data being correct and concise,
defined as the degree to which a value is correct.
Completeness refers to data being comprehensive.
It is evaluated by assessing the ratio between the
amount of data that have been collected compared to
the data that could be collected.
Timeliness refers to ensuring data are current and
have not become irrelevant to the problem at hand.
Readability means the data can be easily explained
and understood.
Consistency refers to the violation of semantic
rules defined over a set of data items. Therefore,
this dimension can be calculated only if a set
of rules that represent dependencies between
attributes is available.
Integrity means that data have a complete structure,
and values are standardized according to a data
model and/or data type. All characteristics, including
business rules, relations, dates, and definitions, must
be correct for the data to have integrity.
Distinctness is related to the absence of duplicates
and measures the percentage of unique or distinct
attributes in a dataset.

Precision can be calculated only for numerical attri-
butes and can be defined as the degree with which the
values of an attribute are close to each other.
Accessibility refers to the ease with which stake-
holders can obtain data.
It was seen of highest importance that item data are
securely maintained, easily accessible, originate from
a credible source, and are accurate and free of errors,
while still providing advantages from their use (Saha and
Srivastava 2014). Still, data quality dimensions of com-
pleteness, interpretability, reputation, and timeliness
were rated nearly as important in relation to item data by
Silvola et al. (2016).
For assessing Big Data quality, it is not sufficient
to consider the traditional data quality dimensions
alone: additional dimensions need to be considered.
For instance, the large number of sources makes trust,
credibility, and data provenance important. Considering
data providers and all the operations or applications that
manipulate data is essential for evaluating data quality in
context (Cappiello et al. 2019).
DATA QUALITY GOVERNANCE
To properly improve and maintain the quality of their
data, organizations should implement data governance.
Data governance is a set of best practices and controls
to actively manage and improve data quality. In partic-
ular, it aims to guide processes, policies, practices, and
structures to orchestrate people, processes, and tech-
nologies toward optimizing the collection, storage, use,
and dissemination of data (Ibrahim, Sammon, and Daly
2016). This process-oriented framework embeds data
quality activities such as planning, cleaning, profiling,
assessing, issue tracking, and monitoring into all rele-
vant operational processes (Marchildon et al. 2018) and
establishes the extent to which data are considered an
enterprise-wide asset (Brous, Janssen, and Vilminko-
Heikkinen 2016).
This step is distinct from data quality management.
Governance refers to decision-making and strategic own-
ership of data quality to ensure effective management
and use of resources, while management implements
those decisions (Ibrahim, Sammon, and Daly 2016). Thus,
governance defines roles, decision areas, and responsi-
bilities, and identifies whether specialists must be hired,
trained, and integrated into the organization to meet its
data quality goals (Brous, Janssen, and Vilminko-Heikkinen
2016). Communities of practice for governance, stew-
ardship, and information management should also be
established at this time (Koltay et al. 2016).
Data governance reduces operational friction and
encourages the adoption of common approaches to data
issues. This is particularly important in Industry 4.0
Data Quality Management for Industry 4.0: A Survey
environments, where workers may not be as accustomed
to working extensively with software and data. Establish-
ing a solid foundation through governance helps identify
the key process owners and changes to reduce the
potential of data quality issues and ensure the pedigree of
the data remains consistent.
Khatri and Brown (2010) proposed a data governance
framework with five concerns, which are further elabo-
rated by Ibrahim, Sammonk, and Daly (2016):
Data principles: Establish ground rules for all other
decisions. The principles set the boundary require-
ments for acceptable use of data assets, which in turn
informs standards for data quality.
Data quality: Establishes practices for assessing
data quality dimensions.
Metadata: Describes information about who, what,
when, where, and how the data were collected, or any
contextual information that illuminates how the data
can be used.
Data access: Identifies who should have access to
the data.
Data life cycle: Defines the production, retention,
and retirement of data assets, which plays a
fundamental role in operationalizing the data
quality principles.
Since Khatri’s initial proposal of this data governance
framework, the Data Governance Institute (DGI) has
expanded the concept of governance. Table 1 shows its
recommended structure.
DATA QUALITY STANDARDS
The ISO 25000 series of standards (referred to as
SQuaRE, for Software product Quality Requirements
and Evaluation) can be used “to define and evaluate data
quality requirements in data production, acquisition and
integration processes; to identify data quality assurance
criteria... for reengineering, assessment and improve-
ment of data; [and] to evaluate the compliance of data
with legislation and/or requirements” (ISO 2008; Basson
et al. 2016).
The data quality model in ISO/IEC 25012 is par-
ticularly well suited for Big Data in manufacturing
environments because it is sensitive to the relative
nature of data quality evaluated for different production
processes. While some data may be of high quality for
one process, they may not be well suited to drive insights
from another. In ISO/IEC 25012, inherent data quality
refers to the degree to which quality characteristics of
data have the intrinsic potential to satisfy stated and
implied needs when data are used under specified condi-
tions. System-dependent data quality addresses fitness
for use in the context of a given process (Merino et al.
2015). As an extension, ISO/IEC 25024 provides general
www.asq.org | 31
 Data Quality Management for Industry 4.0: A Survey

Table 1 Data Governance Institute (DGI) framework.

Area
1. Policy/Standards/Strategy
2. Data Quality
3. Privacy/Compliance/
Security
4. Architecture/Integration
5. D
 ata Warehouse &
Business Intelligence
6. M
 anagement Support
Application
Review, approve, monitor policy
Collect, choose, review, approve, monitor standards
Align policies and standards
Contribute to business rules
Contribute to data strategies
Identify stakeholders and establish decision rights
Set direction for data quality
Monitor data quality
Report status for quality-focused initiatives
Identify stakeholders, establish decision rights, clarify accountabilities
Help protect sensitive data through support for access management and security requirements
Align frameworks and initiatives
Help assess risk and define controls to manage risk
Help enforce regulatory, contractual, architectural compliance requirements
Identify stakeholders, establish decision rights, clarify accountabilities
Ensure consistent data definitions
Support architectural policies and standards
Support metadata programs, service-oriented architecture (SOA), Master data management (MDM),
enterprise data management (EDM)
Bring cross-functional attention to integration challenges
Identify stakeholders, establish decision rights, clarify accountabilities
Establish rules for data usage and data definitions.
Identify stakeholders, establish decision rights, clarify accountabilities
Identify SDLC embedded governance steps and loop-outs for projects
Clarify the value of data assets and data-related projects.
Measure the value of data and data-related efforts.
Align frameworks and initiatives
Identify stakeholders, establish decision rights, clarify accountabilities
Identify SDLC embedded governance steps and loop-outs for projects
Monitor and report on data-related projects
Promote data-related messages, positions, and principles
©2020 ASQ

measures to quantify the external and internal quality of
the data with compliance to the characteristics from ISO/
IEC 25012 (Merino et al. 2015).
Because business value can only be assessed with
respect to context of use in Industry 4.0, Caballero,
Serrano, and Piattini (2014) propose a “3Cs” model to
evaluate the quality-in-use of big datasets: contextual
consistency, operational consistency, and temporal
consistency. For each of these categories, they select
appropriate data quality dimensions to evaluate the
quality of Big Data in terms of their volume, velocity, and
variety (see Table 2).
By design, the definitions in ISO/IEC 25012 are
quite generic as well, leaving space for an organization’s
specific context of use and opening space for further
research. Because research into the practical applications
of quality for Big Data in manufacturing environments is
32 | SQP VOL. 22 | NO. 2 | ©2020, ASQ
preliminary, the scale of these systems and the potential
for poor data to have widespread impacts should compel
organizations to adopt relevant standards (Laranjeiro,
Soydemir, and Bernadino 2015).
CONCLUSIONS
This article examined the relationship between Industry
4.0 scenarios and data quality management approaches.
By exploring 51 papers, the authors identified key charac-
teristics and frameworks that are applicable for ensuring
data quality in modern manufacturing organizations. As
these facilities continue to become more reliant on data
to monitor and streamline operations, optimizing the
performance and longevity of their assets, they should be
cognizant of how information is acquired, processed, and
used to make business decisions.

Table 2 Linking data quality dimensions to ISO/IEC 25012 and characteristics of Big Data. (Caballero, Serrano, and Piattini 2014)
Velocity
Contextual Consistency, Credibility,
Consistency Confidentiality
Temporal Consistency, Credibility,
Consistency Currentness, Availability
Operational Completeness, Accessibility,
Consistency Efficiency, Traceability,
Availability, Recoverability
Some specific recommendations from this survey include:
Data
�  quality management is an ongoing process.
Companies need to gain broad commitment at
all levels of the organization to data quality man-
agement principles and develop processes and
programs that continually reduce data defects
over time.
� Establishing a framework to ensure the quality of data
at its source (IoT/CPS endpoints) is critical to reduce
the likelihood of poor data quality throughout the
production system.
� Process controls on data quality are also import-
ant. In addition to studying the material flow in
REFERENCES
Abedjan, Z., L. Golab, and F. Naumann. 2017. Data profiling: A tutorial.
SIGMOD ’17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on
Management of Data, 1747-1751.
Abdel-Basset, M., G. Manogaran, and M. Mohamed. 2018. Internet of
Things (IoT) and its impact on supply chain: A framework for building
smart, secure and efficient systems. Future Generation Computer
Systems 86, 614-628.
Ahmadi, A., C. Cherifi, V. Cheutet, and Y. Ouzrout. 2017. A review of CPS
5 components architecture for manufacturing based on standards. In
2017 11th International Conference on Software, Knowledge, Information
Management and Applications (SKIMA). New York: IEEE, 1-6.
Barrera, R., A. Navarro-García, and M. Moreno. 2015. The relation-
ship between the online consumer’s profile and the type of service
encounter in the online travel agencies. In Integrated Management
Systems. New York: Springer.
Basson, H., M. Bouneffa, M. Matsuda, A. Ahmad, and D. Chung, et al.
2016. Qualitative Evaluation of Manufacturing Software Units Interop-
erability using ISO 25000 Quality Model. I-ESA 2016, 8th International
Data Quality Management for Industry 4.0: A Survey
Volume Variety
Completeness, Credibility Accuracy, Consistency,
Understandability
Availability Consistency, Currentness,
Compliance
Completeness, Accessibility, Accuracy, Accessibility,
Efficiency, Availability, Compliance, Efficiency,
Recoverability Precision, Traceability,
Availability, Recoverability
©2020 ASQ
manufacturing processes, data flow should be just as
important as Industry 4.0 technologies continue to
be integrated.
� Manufacturing facilities should consider applying
standards for data quality like ISO 25012 or the 3C
model derived from this standard. These have tradi-
tionally only been used in software organizations, and
while they are unproven, they hold great potential.
Poor data quality has a cascading effect within all orga-
nizations that can spread through the global supply chain.
The compounding impact of poor data quality cannot only
lead to erroneous business decisions and low efficiency but
also to reduction of credibility and loss of reputation.
Conference Interoperability for Enterprise Systems and Applications,
Guimarães, Portugal.
Batini, C., A. Rula, M. Scannapieco, and G. Viscusi. 2016. From data
quality to big data quality. In Big Data: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools,
and Applications, 1934-1956. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Brous, P., M. Janssen, and R. Vilminko-Heikkinen. 2016. Coordinating
decision-making in data management activities: A systematic review
of data governance principles. In International Conference on Elec-
tronic Government, 115-125. Springer, Cham.
Caballero, I., M. Serrano, and M. Piattini. 2014. A data quality in use
model for big data. In International Conference on Conceptual Model-
ing, 65-74. Springer, Cham.
Cai, Li, and Y. Zhu. 2015. The challenges of data quality and data qual-
ity assessment in the big data era. Data Science Journal 14.
Cappiello, C., M. Comuzzi, F. Daniel, and G. Meroni. 2019. Data quality
control in blockchain applications. In International Conference on
Business Process Management, 166-181. Springer, Cham.
www.asq.org | 33
 Data Quality Management for Industry 4.0: A Survey
Cappiello, C., W. Samá, and M. Vitali. 2018. Quality awareness for a
successful big data exploitation. IDEAS.
Ehrlinger, L., E. Rusz, and W. Wolfram. 2019. A survey of data quality
measurement and monitoring tools.
Goienetxea Uriarte, A., A. H. Ng, and M. Urenda Moris. 2018. Support-
ing the lean journey with simulation and optimization in the context
of Industry 4.0. In Procedia Manufacturing 25, 586-593.
Gudivada, V., A. Apon, and J. Ding. 2017. Data quality considerations
for big data and machine learning: Going beyond data cleaning and
transformations. International Journal on Advances in Software 10, 1-20.
Hoeren T. 2018. Big data and data quality. In Big Data in Context, T.
Hoeren and B. Kolany-Raiser, eds. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham.
Ibrahim, A., D. Sammon, and M. Daly. 2016. Data governance activities:
An analysis of the literature. Journal of Decision Systems 25. 64-75.
Illés, B., P. Tamás, P. Dobos, and R. Skapinyecz. 2017. New challenges for
quality assurance of manufacturing processes in industry 4.0. In Solid
State Phenomena 261, 481-486. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications.
Imani, M., and N. Radziwill. 2020. Computerized maintenance and
asset management: Improving quality through systems integration.
Software Quality Professional 22, no. 2 (March).
ISO. 2008. ISO/IEC 25012:2008. Software engineering — Software
product quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE) — Data qual-
ity model. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/35736.html.
Jayaram, A. 2016. Lean six sigma approach for global supply chain
management using industry 4.0 and IIoT. In 2016 2nd International
Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I). New
York: IEEE, 89-94.
Juddoo, S. 2015. Overview of data quality challenges in the context of
Big Data. International Conference on Computing, Communications,
and Security (December).
Khatri, V., and C. V. Brown. 2010. Designing data governance. Com-
munications of the ACM, 53, no. 1:148-152.
Kiel, D., J. M. Müller, C. Arnold, and K. I. Voigt. 2017. Sustainable indus-
trial value creation: Benefits and challenges of industry 4.0. Interna-
tional Journal of Innovation Management 21, 08.
Kolberg, D., and D. Zühlke. 2015. Lean automation enabled by
industry 4.0 technologies. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48, no. 3:1870-1875.
Koltay, T. 2016. Data governance, data literacy and the management
of data quality. IFLA 42, no. 4:303-312.
34 | SQP VOL. 22 | NO. 2 | ©2020, ASQ
Laranjeiro, N., S. N. Soydemir, and J. Bernardino. 2015. A survey on data
quality: Classifying poor data. In 2015 IEEE 21st Pacific rim international
symposium on dependable computing (PRDC). New York: IEEE, 179-188.
Lee, J., B. Bagheri, and H. A. Kao. 2015. A cyber-physical systems
architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems.
Manufacturing Letters 3, 18-23.
Longo, F., L. Nicoletti, and A. Padovano. 2017. Smart operators in
industry 4.0: A human-centered approach to enhance operators’
capabilities and competencies within the new smart factory context.
Computers and Industrial Engineering 113, 144-159.
Marchildon, P., S. Bourdeau, P. Hadaya, and A. Labissière. 2018. Data
governance maturity assessment tool: A design science approach.
Projectics / Proyéctica / Projectique 20, no. 2:155-193.
Mahanti, R. 2019. Data quality and data quality dimensions. Software
Quality Professional 22, no. 1.
Mayr, A., M. Weigelt, A. Kühl, S. Grimm, A. Erll, M. Potzel, and J.
Franke. 2018. Lean 4.0-A conceptual conjunction of lean management
and Industry 4.0. Procedia Cirp 72, 622-628.
Merino, J., I. Caballero, B. Rivas, M. Serrano, and M. Piattini. 2015. A data
quality in use model for big data. Future Generation Computer Systems.
Mirzaie, M., B. Behkamal, and S. Paydar. 2019. Big Data Quality: A
systematic literature review and future research directions.
Monostori, L., B. Kádár, T. Bauernhansl, S. Kondoh, S. Kumara, G.
Reinhart, et al. 2016. Cyber-physical systems in manufacturing. Cirp
Annals 65, no. 2: 621-641.
Mourtzis, D., E. Vlachou, and N. Milas. 2016. Industrial big data as a
result of IoT adoption in manufacturing. Procedia cirp 55, 290-295.
Patel, J. 2015. Data quality management – Tools and techniques.
International Journal of Computer Science and Communications 7, no.
1. Available at: http://csjournals.com/IJCSC/PDF7-1/29.%20Jigna.pdf.
Rüßmann, M., M. Lorenz, P. Gerbert, M. Waldner, J. Justus, P. Engel, and
M. Harnisch. 2015. Industry 4.0: The future of productivity and growth
in manufacturing industries. Boston Consulting Group 9, no. 1:54-89.
Saha, B., and D. Srivastava. 2014. Data quality: The other face of big
data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engi-
neering, 1294-1297.
Sanders, A., C. Elangeswaran, and J. P. Wulfsberg. 2016. Industry
4.0 implies lean manufacturing: Research activities in industry 4.0
function as enablers for lean manufacturing. Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management 9, no. 3:811-833.
 Data Quality Management for Industry 4.0: A Survey

When processes can

more effectively use and
incorporate data, workers
and managers are better
equipped to make sound,
thorough, data-driven
business decisions.
Image: AzmanL via iStock.com

Silvola, R., J. Harkonen, O. Vilppola, H. Kropsu-Vehkapera, and H. Yan, J., Y. Meng, L. Lu, Lei, and L. Li. 2017. Industrial big data in an
Haapasalo. 2016. Data quality assessment and improvement. Interna- industry 4.0 environment: Challenges, schemes and applications for
tional Journal of Business Information Systems 22, no. 1, 62-81. predictive maintenance. IEEE Access 1-1.

Taleb, I., M. A. Serhani, and R. Dssouli. 2018. Big data quality assess-
ment model for unstructured data. In 2018 International Conference
on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT). New York: IEEE, 69-74.
Thomas, G. 2014. The DGI data governance framework. White
paper. Available at: http://www.datagovernance.com/wp-content/
uploads/2014/11/dgi_framework.pdf.
Vaidya, S., P. Ambad, and S. Bhosle. 2018. Industry 4.0 – A Glimpse.
20. 233-238.
Zhou, K., T. Liu, and L. Zhou. 2015. Industry 4.0: Towards future
industrial opportunities and challenges. In 2015 12th International
conference on fuzzy systems and knowledge discovery (FSKD). New
York: IEEE, 2147-2152.
Zúñiga, E. R., M. U. Moris, and A. Syberfeldt. 2017. Integrating
simulation-based optimization, lean, and the concepts of industry
4.0. In 2017 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). New York: IEEE,
3828-3839.

BIOGRAPHIES

Diamond Williams works as a data engineer for ENGIE and operates ZaDor Consulting, LLC. She graduated from Missouri University of Science &
Technology with a bachelor’s degree in engineering management/industrial engineering and is completing a master’s degree in quality manage-
ment from Eastern Michigan University. Diamond is a member of NSBE, ASQ, and OSDC. She can be reached by email at dwill267@emich.edu.

Herman Tang is an associate professor at the School of Engineering, Eastern Michigan University. His research experiences are in the areas of
mechanical, manufacturing, and quality engineering. Tang has published three technical books and many scholarly journal papers. He has also
served as an associate editor and a reviewer for several scholarly journals and conferences, and a panelist for NSF. Tang earned his doctorate
degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Michigan–Ann Arbor, a master’s degree and a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engi-
neering from Tianjin University, and an MBA in industrial management from Baker College. Tang is a member of SAE, SME, ASME, and ASQ. He
can be reached by email at htang2@emich.edu.

www.asq.org | 35