Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to review existing smart manufacturing (SM) maturity models' dimensions and maturity levels to assess their applicability and drawbacks. There are many maturity models available but many of them have not been validated or do not provide a useful guide or tool for applications. This gap creates the need for a review of the existing maturity model's applicability.Design/methodology/approach: Nineteen peer-reviewed maturity models related to “Digital Transformation,” “Industry 4.0” or “Smart Manufacturing” were selected based on a systematic literature review and five consulting firm models were selected based on the author's industry knowledge. The chosen models were analyzed to determine 10 categories of dimensions. Then they are assessed on a 1–5 scale for how applicable they are in the 10 categories of dimensions.Findings: The five “consulting firm” models have a first-mover advantage, are more widely used in industry and are more applicable, but some require payment, and they lack published details and validation. The 19 “peer reviewed” models are not as widely used, lack awareness in the industry and are not as easy to apply because of no web tool for self-assessment, but they are improving. The categories defined to characterize the models and facilitate comparisons for users include “Information Technology (IT) and Cyber-Physical System (CPS) and Data,” “Strategy and Organization,” “Supply Chain and Logistics,” “Products and Services,” “Culture and Employees,” “Technology and Capabilities,” “Customer and Market,” “Cybersecurity and Risk,” “Leadership and Management” and “Governance and Compliance.” The analyzed maturity models were particularly weak in the areas of cybersecurity, leadership and governance.Practical implications: Researchers and practitioners can use this review with consideration of their specific needs to determine if a maturity model is applicable or if a new model needs to be developed. The review can also aid in the development of maturity models through the discussion of each of the dimension categories.Originality/value: Compared to existing reviews of SM maturity models, this research determines comprehensive dimension categories and focuses on applicability and drawbacks.

This research introduces an energy prediction framework at the facility level supported by automated data collection and machine learning models. It investigates whether reducing the prediction time scale allows for applying more complex machine learning techniques and if those techniques improve the prediction accuracy. The primary advantages of this framework lie in its automation of the energy prediction process and its provision of real-time energy data suitable for use in energy dashboards or digital twins. A sitewide dataset was created by combining 15 min energy and daily production data of five shops—assembly, battery, body (electric), body (gas), and paint—from a globally recognized electric vehicle manufacturer. Various machine learning models were evaluated on daily, weekly, and monthly datasets, including, in increasingly complex order: naïve, simple linear regression, net regularized generalized linear regression, principal component regression, k-nearest neighbor, random forest, and Bayesian regularized neural network. Compared to the current state-of-the-art energy consumption prediction for the industrial facility level, this research investigates more complex models and smaller time intervals for higher accuracy. The findings revealed that the more complex monthly models require a minimum of a year and a half of data to operate, while weekly models demand a year of data to achieve improved accuracy. Daily models can operate with only six months of data but exhibit poor performance due to reduced prediction accuracy of production. Key challenges identified include access to reliable, high-quality energy and production data and the initial demand for human labor.

In this study, a novel sizing methodology was developed for centralized and interconnected operating strategies of transactive microgrids and several variables were investigated including starting month, initial charge of battery, load variability, unit cost of solar panels and energy storage, number of systems, climate, and required reliability to determine their effect on total cost. The centralized strategy improved cost by seven to ten percent compared to the isolated strategy in every case. The interconnected strategy saved an incremental amount of money consistently compared to the isolated standard. The number of connected systems was not a strong effect. It was thought that increasing the number of systems would increase the benefit of energy sharing. Climate zones studied (“Cold”; “Hot-Dry/Mixed Dry”; “Mixed Humid”; and “Cold but with lower solar irradiation”) showed a large variation on cost with the Hot-Dry/Mixed Dry being the least expensive and Cold, with lower solar irradiation being the most expensive. Cost sensitivity analysis was performed showing that the unit cost of solar has a greater effect on the total cost. Required reliability of power, measured in outage hours, exhibited an inverse relation with cost.