sustainability

Article
Virtual Reality-Based Engineering Education to
Enhance Manufacturing Sustainability in Industry 4.0
Bashir Salah 1, *, Mustufa Haider Abidi 2, * , Syed Hammad Mian 2 , Mohammed Krid 1 ,
Hisham Alkhalefah 2 and Ali Abdo 3
1 Industrial Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh-11421,
Saudi Arabia; mkrid@ksu.edu.sa
2 Advanced Manufacturing Institute, King Saud University, Riyadh-11421, Saudi Arabia;
smien@ksu.edu.sa (S.H.M.); halkhalefah@ksu.edu.sa (H.A.)
3 Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Birzeit University, Birzeit-PO Box 14, Palestine;
aabdo@birzeit.edu
* Correspondence: bsalah@ksu.edu.sa (B.S.); mabidi@ksu.edu.sa (M.H.A.)




Received: 7 February 2019; Accepted: 4 March 2019; Published: 11 March 2019


Abstract: Many advanced product manufacturing approaches have been introduced in the market in
recent years. Thus, it is critical to develop modern techniques which can effectively familiarize
budding minds with the latest manufacturing procedures. In fact, the contemporary training
methods and advanced education practices are crucial to uphold the interest of the new generation
as well as to equip them with state-of the art systems. There is a need for innovative ideas and
effective methodologies to inculcate the desired competency and prepare students for prospective
manufacturing set ups. In the latest Industry 4.0 paradigm, visualization technologies, especially
virtual reality, have been emphasized to sustainably train and educate young students. This work
presents a technique for utilizing the leading visualization method based on virtual reality in
product manufacturing. It aims to acquaint students with the prominent concept of Industry 4.0, the
reconfigurable manufacturing system (RMS). The RMS has been a demanding topic for the novice
and, most often, amateurs are not able to grasp and interpret it. Therefore, this paper outlines the
various steps that can be useful for students in order to anticipate the RMS design, interact with it,
understand its operation, and evaluate its performance.

Keywords: engineering education; Industry 4.0; learning laboratory; virtual reality; automation
technologies; reconfigurable manufacturing system; sustainability

1. Introduction
Manufacturing processes and technologies have been subjected to continuous advancements
and transformations in the Industry 4.0 concept owing to fickle customer demands as well as precise
quality requirements [1]. The growing complexities of design and the need of efficient production
practices have resulted in the evolution of manufacturing methods. Cutting edge, distinct, and new
manufacturing techniques and tools are consistently being developed to meet fluctuating market
demands. Certainly, in the time period of Industry 4.0, engineers or workers have to become
adaptable to volatile market situations and to the intricacy of contemporary technologies existing in the
manufacturing process [2]. The Industry 4.0 revolution, with advancements in automation, information,
and communication technologies, has improved the capabilities and flexibilities of manufacturing
systems. However, they also augment inherent system complexities, which make them cumbersome
to understand and difficult to operate. As a result, there is a need for the development of advanced,

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477; doi:10.3390/su11051477 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 2 of 19

novel, and innovative teaching and training methods in order to keep up with the pace of advances in
manufacturing systems [3].
The design and operation complexity of contemporary manufacturing systems have increased
in the last decade or so [4]. This can be attributed to advanced and customized products, which
often lead to complex systems and operations [5]. These systems are complicated in terms of their
design, development, and are difficult to realize theoretically. In fact, the technological progress of the
contemporary Industry 4.0 paradigm has increased the levels of complexity in terms of product design,
innovation, implementation, performance assessment, etc. Therefore, the design, management, and
sustainable operation of these advanced manufacturing technologies require experienced engineers
and highly skilled operators. Consequently, academic institutions need to focus on the design and
development of educational programs which are based on innovative teaching techniques [6]. There
is a requirement of unconventional but effective training methods which can endow students and
trainees with the desired knowledge and skills.
Organizations and industries assume that fresh graduates being hired are completely trained
and capable to handle complex systems. However, the actual situation is entirely contradictory,
where the new engineers or operators are not fully equipped to deal with the complexities of modern
technologies. The existence of traditional teaching methods and lack of practical applications in the
present education system are some of the primary reasons for the scarcity of thoughtful students.
Generally, the universities and training institutions in the current education environment design their
curricula around modular courses, where each course addresses a particular aspect. For example,
the subjects or the courses in industrial and systems engineering programs are dedicated to product
innovation and design, facility planning and design, manufacturing engineering (including materials
sciences, processes, automation, and control), ergonomics, logistics and operations management,
planning, scheduling, optimization, information systems, and statistics. Indeed, each of these courses
introduces a part of the overall complexity. However, the actual problem lies in designing courses
that integrate such modules which can present real-scale problems and solutions to the students.
The modular courses do not consider the unpredictability involved in real situations, rather they
presume the ideal, unrealistic conditions.
Lately, the concept of learning factories (LF) has been introduced to modernize the learning process
and to make training procedures more realistic environments [7]. Similarly, Virtual Reality (VR) can be
demonstrated as a competent method for teaching challenging concepts to trainees and students [8,9].
VR can be defined as an advanced visualization technique which is effective and valuable due to the
fact that it can assume the real situation and realize the final outcome adequately [10]. The engineers
or the operators can interact with the manufacturing set ups, practice on them, and analyze their
performance in a more intuitive and comprehensive manner with the digital environment offered by
VR. Within the ideology of Industry 4.0 sustained by ingenious technologies such as the Internet of
Things and Cloud technology, VR can contribute significantly in manufacturing education [11,12].
Therefore, the adoption of new teaching methods such as LF and VR are necessary to enhance the
capabilities and skills of young engineers in addition to integrating knowledge from various modular
courses. Although there have been many such ideas and innovative teaching techniques, there is still a
dearth of methodologies, guidelines, and case studies focusing on the role of education and practical
training for the development of technical proficiency in Industry 4.0. In this work, a methodology based
on VR has been introduced to design a course and prepare students to deal with future manufacturing
complexities. A case study has been presented to aid students in understanding the complexities of
design, implementation, and assessing the performance and operation of reconfigurable manufacturing
system (RMS).

2. Literature Review
In many instances, the young (or newly) engineering graduates are not well-prepared to deal
with industrial system complexities. They are not cognizant of the flexibilities offered by the advanced
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 3 of 19

technologies. Certainly, they are not fully prepared and capable of translating technologies into
design and operational solutions. With these factors in mind, it is crucial to transform the existing
manufacturing education, primarily to prevent the deficit of well-trained workforce as well as make
them proficient to cope with technological advancements [11]. Numerous efforts have been initiated
to fill the existing gap in education system and adopt pragmatic teaching and training approaches.
In recent times, LFs as well as VR in industries and academia are areas of intense research in order
to keep pace with industrial development and achieve sustainable manufacturing. For example,
different LFs established by TU Darmstadt were used for educational purposes, research and training
in areas such as manufacturing [13]. Various LFs have been developed for the purpose of production
process improvement, re-configurability, production and factory layout planning, energy and resource
efficiency, applied teaching factory concept, and industry 4.0 [7]. LFs can be described as teaching and
learning environments in which trainees and learners experience and practice theoretical concepts
under real situations in supervised conditions [14,15]. The institute of Industrial Manufacturing and
Management (IFF), University of Stuttgart has developed a LF for advanced Industrial Engineering [16].
The primary objective was to create a link between digital production planning and implementation
of physical models in the laboratory. Similarly, ElMaraghy & ElMaraghy [17], have introduced a LF
environment which integrated product and system development, operation, and control. Although
many researches have addressed LFs in the engineering education context, there are only very
few education institutions who are actually implementing LFs in their system [18]. Intelligent
Manufacturing Systems (IMS) Center (Windsor, Canada) in 2011 developed a modular and movable
assembly system which consisted of robotic and manual assembly stations, computer vision inspection
station, Automated Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS), and several material handling modules for
the purpose of providing practical training. It was combined with a design innovation studio (iDesign),
process and production planning tools (iPlan), a 3D printing facility, and a dimensional metrology
Coordinate Measuring Machine facility [17]. Schreiber et al. [19] introduced a research-based learning
concept that allowed students to define their own research questions and taught them how to solve
those problems using scientific methods. However, the concept was designed and used like research
projects rather than as a teaching method for senior engineering students. In TU Vienna, a pilot
course was designated as the ’integrative Product Emergence Process’ (i-PEP). This course trained
students on dealing with complete product development: customer order, design, planning, and
manufacturing. The teaching approach consisted of an exercise to develop a slot car and design its
production process [20]. However, the kind of reconfigurable facility layout required was not specified.
Moreover, Bedolla et al. [21], presented a novel IT teaching strategy. It was composed of three stages
of product lifecycle: product design, process design, and virtual factory simulation. However, the
procedure for the assessment of different layouts and implementation on the real system was not
discussed. It has also been observed that complex procedures, such as factory planning, RMS, flexible
manufacturing system, etc., are difficult and complicated to understand with LF due to invariable
realization phases. The approach known as virtual learning factory (VLF) was employed by [15] to
overcome this issue. Hence, VLF is the latest trend that can be employed to realize and articulate a real
environment, product, or process through a digital model.
The concept of VR has gained significant attention in last few years from academic and educational
institutions. VR systems can successfully be implemented to explore and experience products, complex
systems, and processes implicitly on a computer screen [8]. They help to apprehend and communicate
with three-dimensional (3D) virtual depiction, acquaint the virtual environment in real-time, and
envision theoretical concepts. For example, the VR-based education framework known as CyberMath
was developed by Taxén and Naeve, for teaching complex mathematical concepts. Their findings
suggested that VR possesses a significant potential to become a powerful and effective tool for
discovering and understanding mathematics as well as other complicated engineering theories and
principles. Researchers carried out a comprehensive study to depict the benefits of employing VR and
3D modelling in engineering education [22]. They asserted that VR implementation can be utilized
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 4 of 19

to overcome inconsistency and assess various alternative solutions. Similarly, Dávideková et al. [23],
studied different learning techniques and determined the limitations and deficiencies of currently used
conventional teaching methods. They emphasized the importance of VR-based teaching methodologies
to improve dynamics and interactivity of existing educations systems. In fact, a VR-based simulator
was presented by Ahlberg et al. [24] for a medical training and education system. They employed
a LapSim simulator to develop the desired skills and expertise needed to perform laparoscopically
on patients. The results of this study indicated improved initial learning level of the trainees as
well as competence and capability of VR approach. For the enhancement of skills and inflation of
transfer of knowledge, Kaufmann et al. [25] used an augmented reality system. They employed
extensible techniques to aid teacher–student interaction scenarios through context and user dependent
rendering of parts. Moreover, the outcome of the study by Merchant et al. [26] also affirmed that
VR-based systems provide an effective medium to improve the quality of education. The benefits
of VR were also savored by Shin et al., [27] who designed a web-based interactive virtual laboratory
system for process systems engineering education. Their aim was to overcome several hindrances
associated with limited space and time, hazards and safety issues, and fixed resources to carry out
real experiments. Numerous VR systems, such as an intravenous catheter training system [28] as well
as a desktop VR-based learning environment [29], have confirmed the potential of VR. The results
of using these systems have shown that they can be implemented to understand concepts, practice
techniques, and minimize risk related to training, in addition to the establishment of standards and
optimized procedures.
The development of virtual systems fulfilling the requirements of engineering education has
been attracting more and more research interest. Certainly, Industry 4.0 is a current trend and it
requires prompt, effective, and efficient maintenance and training to acquire advanced solutions
and thrive in highly competitive markets [11,30,31]. After analyzing the literature and studying
various computer-based teaching techniques, the concept of VLF in the manufacturing education
domain has been introduced in this paper. The concept of VLF has been utilized to teach students
about changeable manufacturing systems. The proposed methodology would also enable students
to assess the performance of the implemented layout. A case study that takes advantage of VR has
been developed to teach students about the complicated tasks of design and operation of automated
manufacturing systems. Moreover, it explains how a course has to be designed depending on VLF in
order to inform students of the complexity of designing, implementing, assessing the performance,
and the operation of RMS.
The different levels of reconfiguration in a manufacturing system have been considered in this
work. For example, the reconfiguration of storage systems, reconfiguration of material handling
systems, reconfiguration of machines, workstations and/or production cells, reconfiguration of
manufacturing processes, and reconfiguration of plant layout have been explored. The RMS has
capability to adapt to rapid or unpredictable market changes in an efficient manner. The RMS consists
of reconfigurable modules, reconfigurable controllers, and methodologies for their systematic design
and rapid upgrading. These modules are the foundations of the new manufacturing paradigm of
Industry 4.0 [32]. An RMS has the ability to reconfigure hardware and control resources at all of the
functional and organizational levels, in order to quickly adjust production capacity and functionality
in response to sudden changes in market or in regulatory requirements [33]. The response to the
demands of complex processes, reconfigure technologies, and the development of physical and logical
change enablers should be considered and realized while designing a sustainable manufacturing
system [34]. It can be very challenging for universities or training centers to teach students about the
concept of RMS and other similar techniques without a well-defined approach. Education and training
institutions have to adopt emergent strategies to overcome the existent challenges and revolutionize
the current teaching environments through the employment of LFs or laboratories [35].
Several works can be identified in the literature which have analyzed the reconfigurability
of manufacturing systems [36–38]. For example, Mehrabi et al. [39] introduced four levels
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 5 of 19

of reconfiguration related to machines, processes, layout, and control. The different levels of
reconfiguration in a manufacturing system can be discussed as follows. The reconfiguration of
storage systems can be defined as the flexibilities pertaining to the number, size, location in the
plant (layout), modification of the structure of storage buffers (e.g., adding a new motion axis for
storage/retrieval device in an AS/RS) [40], as well as dynamic inventory management and control
policies [41,42]. Similarly, the reconfiguration of material handling systems involves decisions related
to dynamicSustainability
combination and use of several types of material handling equipment (trucks,
2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
automated
5 of 19
guided vehicles, rail guided vehicles, conveyors, cranes, and hoists), as well as modification of
storage/retrieval
transportation layout indevice the plantin an [43–45].
AS/RS) [40],
The as reconfiguration
well as dynamic inventory
of tools management
and fixturesand is
control
related to the
policies [41,42]. Similarly, the reconfiguration of material handling systems involves decisions related
use of the tosame tool and/or fixture for more than one part of the same part
dynamic combination and use of several types of material handling equipment (trucks, automated
family, the design of
tools and fixtures that can
guided vehicles, railaccommodate
guided vehicles,different
conveyors,orientations, or variable
cranes, and hoists), as well production
as modification capacity
of (e.g.,
variable number of mold
transportation layoutprints) [46–49].
in the plant [43–45].The
The reconfiguration of machines,
reconfiguration of tools workstations,
and fixtures is related to the and/or
productionuse of the
cells cansamebetool and/or fixture
associated foraddition
with more than of onedevices
part of the same
and part family, the
capabilities, design
more of tools
axis motions and
and fixtures that can accommodate different orientations, or variable production capacity (e.g.
larger toolvariable
magazines [39,50,51]. The reassignment of workers to different processes/operations,
number of mold prints) [46–49]. The reconfiguration of machines, workstations, and/or
which requires multiskilled
production cells can be workers
associatedwhowithcan accomplish
addition of devicesdifferent operation/process
and capabilities, more axis motionstypes
and with the
larger tool magazines [39,50,51]. The reassignment of workers to different
required quality standards [52,53], is defined as the reconfiguration of labor and workforce. The processes/operations,
which requires multiskilled workers who can accomplish different operation/process types with the
reconfiguration of manufacturing processes can be described as the flexibilities involving possible
required quality standards [52,53], is defined as the reconfiguration of labor and workforce. The
adaptations of part/product flows within the plant, i.e. modification of their routing and sequencing on
reconfiguration of manufacturing processes can be described as the flexibilities involving possible
productionadaptations
equipment [17,54,55]. flows
of part/product Moreover, theplant,
within the reconfiguration of of
i.e. modification plant
theirlayout
routing is
andrelated to flexibilities
sequencing
involving on production
dynamic equipment [17,54,55].
modification Moreover, the
and organization of reconfiguration of plant layout
locations of machines is series,
(e.g., related to
parallel, or
flexibilities involving dynamic modification and organization of locations of machines (e.g. series,
hybrid configurations), storage buffers, manufacturing cells, and circulation paths for transportation
parallel, or hybrid configurations), storage buffers, manufacturing cells, and circulation paths for
equipmenttransportation
and personnel withinand
equipment thepersonnel
plant [56–59].
within Finally,
the plant the reconfiguration
[56–59]. of software of
Finally, the reconfiguration and control
can be correlated
software and control can be correlated with the ability of the control system to allow integration of increase
with the ability of the control system to allow integration of new equipment,
new equipment,
the equipment interfacingincrease the equipment interfacing
and communication and adapt
capabilities, communication
informationcapabilities,
storageadapt
and retrieval
information storage and retrieval capabilities for the plant, and allow integration of new technologies
capabilities for the plant, and allow integration of new technologies and removal or updating of old
and removal or updating of old ones [60,61].
ones [60,61].
3. Methodology
3. Methodology
The proposed methodology is VR-based and gives significant weight to real case studies which
are integral to
The proposed Industry 4.0. Thisisstudy
methodology was conducted
VR-based and during
gives the course IE 461weight
significant (Computerto Integrated
real case studies
Manufacturing) at Industrial Engineering Department, King Saud University, to realize the
which are integral to Industry 4.0. This study was conducted during the course IE 461 (Computer
effectiveness of the “learning by doing” strategy as suggested by Edgar Dale [62] in the cone of
Integratedexperience
Manufacturing)
(Figure 1). at Industrial
This kind of studyEngineering Department,
or approach would aid studentsKing Saud University,
to experience the realities to realize
the effectiveness
as well asofthe
the “learning
issues pertainingbytodoing” strategy
the shop-floor as suggested
environment byenvironment.
in a virtual Edgar Dale [62] in the cone of
In this1).
experience (Figure work, an kind
This exampleof of RMS has
study been undertaken,
or approach wouldwhere
aidstudents
studentscarried out an assignment
to experience the realities as
to learn about the technicalities of RMS using VR. The working area, which can also be termed as a
well as the issues pertaining to the shop-floor environment in a virtual environment.
VLF, focuses on education, training, and research pertaining to manufacturing concepts.

Figure 1. Cone of Experience, adapted from [62].

Figure 1. Cone of Experience, adapted from [62].
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 6 of 19

As mentioned by Dale, a person can remember things for a longer time or period if he or she
actually performs
In this work, anthatexample
work orofexperience in real
RMS has been time. Henceforth,
undertaken, the VLFcarried
where students concept
outis an
introduced
assignmentin
this work.
to learn It canthe
about betechnicalities
defined as a digital
of RMSplatform
using VR.in which users can
The working immerse
area, which and
can perceive the digital
also be termed as a
world as a real
VLF, focuses onone by usingtraining,
education, advanced andhardware
research and software
pertaining systems. The course
to manufacturing (Figure 2) based
concepts.
on theAsproposed
mentioned methodology
by Dale, a should
person becanbased on fivethings
remember major for
pillars.
a longer time or period if he or she
•actually performs that work or experience
Design of a product to be manufactured. in real time. Henceforth, the VLF concept is introduced in
•this work. It can be defined
Understanding as aits
of VR and digital platform in which users can immerse and perceive the digital
operation.
•world as a real one by using advanced
Import designs into the VR system. hardware and software systems. The course (Figure 2) based on
•the proposed
Exploringmethodology shoulddifferent
and implementing be basedlayout
on fiveconfigurations.
major pillars.
• Assessing the performance of layouts
• Design of a product to be manufactured.
• Since the intention
Understanding behind
of VR thisoperation.
and its course is to train students on advanced automation technologies
and
• strategies
Import designs into the VR system. such as RMS, this course has to be scheduled at the end of
in manufacturing systems
the
• Industrial
ExploringEngineering curriculum,
and implementing andlayout
different needsconfigurations.
to expose students to complex topics, such as
integration,
• flexibility, interoperability,
Assessing the performance of layouts sustainability, and modularity in the design and operation of
manufacturing systems. The various steps of this methodology can be described as follows.

Figure 2.
Figure A course
2. A course designed
designed based
based on
on aa virtual
virtual learning
learning factory
factory (VLF).
(VLF).

Sinceproduct
The the intention
design behind
phasethis is course
integral is to
to train studentscourses,
mandatory on advanced
such automation
as product technologies
design and
innovation, Computer Aided Design/Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) courses, etc. scheduled
and strategies in manufacturing systems such as RMS, this course has to be The students at the
haveendto
of the Industrial Engineering curriculum, and needs to expose students
study and learn these courses at the initial levels in their education program in the Industrial to complex topics, such as
integration, flexibility, interoperability, sustainability, and modularity
Engineering Department. After attending these subjects, the students must be able to define and in the design and operation of
manufacturing systems. The various steps of this methodology can
design a product as well as develop its CAD model. The subsequent phase (known as process be described as follows.
The product
requirements) is design
relatedphase is integral
to courses such to mandatory courses, such
as manufacturing as product
processes, design and
production innovation,
planning and
Computer Aided Design/Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) courses, etc.
control, simulation, and process optimization. The students study these concepts and courses The students have to study and
to gain
learn these courses at the initial levels in their education program
insight of the design process. The students should develop the skills of finding out the most in the Industrial Engineering
Department.process
appropriate After attending
for the given theseproduct.
subjects,Theythe students
must bemustable be able to define
to develop and design
its process plan as a product
well as
as well as develop its CAD model. The subsequent phase (known as
the production routing sheet. They also have to recognize the production operations required process requirements) is related
and
to courses such as manufacturing processes, production planning and control,
their sequence. The third phase involves the core of this work and is called the “VR phase”. The simulation, and process
optimization.
curriculum The include
must studentsteachings
study these concepts
and conceptsandrelated
coursesto to VR,
gain owing
insight to
of the
its design
severalprocess.
benefitsThe in
students should develop the skills of finding out the most appropriate
modern manufacturing. The students have to be exposed to VR and its various components. process for the given product.
They mustthis
Following be able to develop
phase, the traineesits process
wouldplan as well
be able as the production
to develop CAD models routing
for VR sheet. Theyand
systems alsolearn
have
to recognize the production operations required and their sequence. The
about compatibility issues and importing/exporting models within a virtual environment. The layout third phase involves the
core of this work and is called the “VR phase”. The curriculum must include
design and evaluation phase requires a prior knowledge about facility planning, optimization, and teachings and concepts
related to VR,
industrial owing tousing
automation its several benefits in modern
programmable manufacturing.
logic controllers (PLCs)The andstudents
discretehaveeventto simulation
be exposed
to VR and its various components. Following this phase, the trainees
(DES), such as ARENA, to assess the performance of the configuration. The students should also would be able to develop CAD be
models for VR systems and learn about compatibility issues and importing/exporting
able to implement Multi-Criteria Decision Making [63,64] to select the best configuration. models within
a virtual environment. The layout design and evaluation phase requires a prior knowledge about
facility
4. Virtualplanning,
Learning optimization,
Factory and industrial automation using programmable logic controllers (PLCs)
and discrete event simulation (DES), such as ARENA, to assess the performance of the configuration.
The students
The students should would
also be experience industrialMulti-Criteria
able to implement system complexity DecisionbyMaking
carrying out to
[63,64] the above-
select the
mentioned activities.
best configuration. They will learn to work in teams as well as independently. To achieve the
objectives and analyze the VLF, a methodology was designed which investigated the following
hypotheses. The pictorial representation of the methodology is shown in Figure 3.
Hypothesis 1: Subjects in the experimental group who were familiar with VR system would perform the same
as those in the control group who were taught RMS through traditional classroom teaching (µ1 = µ0).
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 7 of 19

4. Virtual Learning Factory

The students would experience industrial system complexity by carrying out the above-mentioned
activities. They will learn to work in teams as well as independently. To achieve the objectives
and analyze the VLF, a methodology was designed which investigated the following hypotheses.
The pictorial representation of the methodology is shown in Figure 3.

Hypothesis 1. Subjects in the experimental group who were familiar with VR system would perform the same
as those in the control group who were taught RMS through traditional classroom teaching (µ1 = µ0 ).

Hypothesis 2. Subjects in the experimental group who understand (who were taught) the VR system would
perform better than those subjects in the control group who were taught by traditional classroom teaching
(µ1 6= µ0 ).

Generally, two classes of 50 industrial engineering students are involved in the computer
integrated manufacturing (CIM) course in each academic spring-term. For this work, the students
were randomly assigned to the experimental (n = 25) and control (n =25) groups. All participants
were right handed (self-reported) with normal vision (medical test) and none of them had any health
problems. All participants had taken the prerequisite courses: IE 360 CAD/CAM (Computer aided
design/computer aided manufacturing), Facility layout design, Optimization, Simulation and IE 301
Product Design and Innovation.
The subjects in both experimental and control groups had to complete two weeks of instruction
in the design and manufacturing of components. The third week commenced with teaching
the configuration of RMS. The students were given two weeks to complete the project, which
required subjects in both groups to design a product by utilizing the skills and knowledge they had
explored throughout the weeks of instruction. The experimental group’s final assignment included
following tasks.

• Selection and design of a product using a CAD program.

• Identify product components, nomenclature, and bill of materials.
• Develop the process, including technology selection, process planning, and routing sheet of
the product.
• Learn to design the product as well as various layouts of RMS using a VR system.
• Develop an actual configuration of an RMS after one week.

On the other hand, the control group was required to do the same as the above, the only difference
was in step 4, where they learned about RMS design using the traditional classroom method. The
experimental procedure involved the following steps.

• Step 1. Select the product to be used as a case study.

• Step 2. Identify product components, nomenclature, and bill of materials.
• Step 3. Develop CAD model for the selected product.
• Step 4. Develop the process, including technology selection, process planning, and routing sheet
of the product.
• Step 5. Design the various layouts of the RMS.
• Step 6. Randomly divide the students into two groups. One group to be taught using a VR-based
system for designing different alternatives of RMS, and the other group to be taught using
traditional classroom teaching.
• Step 7. All participants would perform the actual designing of RMS in the laboratory after a week.
• Step 8 Performance measures will be recorded and analysed.
• Step 6. Randomly divide the students into two groups. One group to be taught using a VR-based
system for designing different alternatives of RMS, and the other group to be taught using
traditional classroom teaching.
• Step 7. All participants would perform the actual designing of RMS in the laboratory after a
week.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 8 of 19
• Step 8 Performance measures will be recorded and analysed.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Pictorial
Pictorial representation
representation of
of the
the methodology.
methodology.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
4.1. Case Study
4.1. Case Study
A machine vice was chosen to apply the production processes on the designed manufacturing
A machine vice was chosen to apply the production processes on the designed manufacturing
system as can be seen in Figure 4. The machine vices are used to hold a work piece during machining.
system as can be seen in Figure 4. The machine vices are used to hold a work piece during machining.
These vices
Theseare fixed
vices on the
are fixed onbed of drill
the bed machines,
of drill machines,milling machines,
milling machines, andand grinding
grinding machines.
machines.

Figure
Figure 4. Selectedproduct
4. Selected tobebemanufactured.
product to manufactured.

The partsThelist
partsoflist
theofmechanical
the mechanical vice
vice isisaalabeled
labeled list
listofofthe parts
the in the
parts in assembly. Table 1Table
the assembly. presents
1 presents
the part
the part list. list.

Table 1. Mechanical Vice part list.

Part No. Quantity Part Name

1 01 Base
2 01 Sliding Jaw
3 01 Vice Screw
4 01 Handle for Screw
5 04 Screw
6 02 Jaws plate
7 01 Collar
8 02 Handle Ball
9 02 Tapper Pin
10 02 Sliding Key
11 01 Special key
12 02 Set Screw

The assembly chart of the mechanical vice shows the primary components, subassemblies, and
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 9 of 19

Table 1. Mechanical Vice part list.

Part No. Quantity Part Name

1 01 Base
2 01 Sliding Jaw
3 01 Vice Screw
4 01 Handle for Screw
5 04 Screw
6 02 Jaws plate
7 01 Collar
8 02 Handle Ball
9 02 Tapper Pin
10 02 Sliding Key
11 01 Special key
12 02 Set Screw

The assembly chart of the mechanical vice shows the primary components, subassemblies, and
subassembly points for each method of assembling the part. Figure 5 presents the assembly chart of
the mechanical vice.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

Figure 5. Assembly
Figure 5. Assembly chart ofthe
chart of themachine
machine vice.
vice.

The routing sheets include the operation number, operation description, manpower required for
carrying out the operation, fixtures used, tools and machines used, cycle time, and measures used for
carrying out quality check. The chosen product was designed with the use of the CAD software tool
“CATIA”. The appropriate tools and parameters were inserted in the software to calculate the process
time for each manufacturing process. Table 2 presents the routing sheet for an item, “BASE”, and
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 10 of 19

The routing sheets include the operation number, operation description, manpower required for
carrying out the operation, fixtures used, tools and machines used, cycle time, and measures used
for carrying out2019,
Sustainability quality
11, x FORcheck. The chosen product was designed with the use of the CAD
PEER REVIEW 10 software
of 19
tool “CATIA”. The appropriate tools and parameters were inserted in the software to calculate the
Table 2. Base of the mechanical vice routing sheet.
process time for each manufacturing process. Table 2 presents the routing sheet for an item, “BASE”,
and represents the methodologies
Sustainability that
2019, 11, x FOR PEER the students have to carry out.
REVIEW 10 of 19

Table 2. Base of the mechanical vice routing sheet.

Table 2. Base of the mechanical vice routing sheet.
Part Name: BASE
Part Material: Malleable Blank Size:180 × 155
Steel Plate Steel Plate, 80 mm
Lot size:Part
20 Name:
pcs. BASE thick
Part Name:
Part BASE
PartNo.: 1
Material: Malleable Blank Size:180 × 155
Part Material: Malleable Steel Plate Blank Size: 180 × 155 Steel
Steel Plate Steel Plate, 80 mm
Lot size: 20 pcs. Plate, 80 mm thick
Lot size: 20 pcs. thick
Part No.: 1
Part No.: 1
Loading/ Prod.
Operation Tool and Setup, Operation
Description Machine Unloading Time,
Number aux. (min)/pc time, min.
(min)/pc min/pc
Loading/
Loading/ Prod.
Prod.
Operation Cut from Setup, Operation
10 Operation
Number
Description
DescriptionSaw
Tool
Tool and and
aux.
PowerMachine
saw
Machine
Setup,
0.8(min)/pc Unloading
1
Unloading
Operation
3 min.
time,
Time,
4.8
Time,
Number stock aux. (min)/pc (min)/pc time, min. min/pc
Milling as per Milling Milling (min)/pc min/pc
1020 Cut from stock
Cut from toolSaw Power saw 1 0.8 1 1 6 3 8 4.8
drawing
10 Milling as per Saw machine
Power
Millingsaw 0.8 1 3 4.8
20 stock Milling tool 1 1 6 8
drawing Twist machine
30 Drilling
Milling as per Drill press
Milling Milling 0.5 0.5 3 4
30 20 Drilling Twist drill
drill Drill press 0.5
1 0.5
1 36 84
40 drawing Thread tool
Threading machine
Thread tool Lathe 0.5 0.5 3 4
40 Threading Twist Lathe 0.5 0.5 3 4
30 Drilling tool Drill press
0.5 0.5 3 4
drill
To design a configuration, Thread
the students shouldLathe
select the number and0.5type of equipment (machines,
40 Threading 0.5 3 4
To design a configuration, the tool
students should select the number and type of equipment
storage, buffers and material handling), and suggest at least three different layouts, such that some
(machines, storage, buffers and material handling), and suggest at least three different layouts, such
constraints are satisfied
To design
that some constraints
(circulation
are
aisles,
a configuration, thesafety
satisfied (circulation
distances,
students
aisles, should
storage
select theareas
safety distances, number
storage
and and
areas
buffers)ofand
typebuffers)
and
objective
equipment
and
criteria (minimize
objective distances,
(machines, maximize
storage, buffers
criteria (minimize throughput,
and material
distances, maximize etc.)
handling), are optimized.
and suggest
throughput, The students
etc.) areatoptimized. have
least three different to develop
layouts,
The students such
have
a CAD to design
develop toasome
that describe
CAD each
constraints
design layout
are
to describe configuration,
satisfied (circulation
each as illustrated
aisles, in Figure
safety distances,
layout configuration, 6. Figure
storage
as illustrated in areas and
6. buffers) and
objective criteria (minimize distances, maximize throughput, etc.) are optimized. The students have
to develop a CAD design to describe each layout configuration, as illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6.Figure 6. Computer-aided

Computer-aided designdesign
(CAD)
Figure 6. Computer-aided
(CAD) models
models
design
of L-Shape
ofmodels
(CAD) (a) (a) L-Shape reconfigurablemanufacturing
reconfigurable
of (a) L-Shape
manufacturing system
reconfigurable manufacturing
(RMS), (b) U-Shape RMS, system (RMS),
and (c) (b) U-Shape
Loop-Shape RMS.RMS, and (c) Loop-Shape RMS.
system (RMS), (b) U-Shape RMS, and (c) Loop-Shape RMS.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 11 of 19
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Then, the students were asked to deploy at least two of their configurations
configurations on
on the
the shop
shop floor.
floor.

4.2. Performance
4.2. Performance Measures
Sustainability 2019, and
11, x FORand
Measures Apparatus
PEER REVIEW
Apparatus 11 of 19

In order
In order
Then,tothe
to evaluate
evaluate the
the
students developed
developed
were teaching
teaching
asked to deploy methodology,
two of theirthe
methodology,
at least the following performance
following
configurations performance measures
measures
on the shop floor.
were recorded; completion time, accuracy, and number of frustration points. For the
were recorded; completion time, accuracy, and number of frustration points. For the experimental experimental
group, the
4.2.the
group, teaching Measures
Performance
teaching apparatus
andwas
apparatus aa semi-immersive
semi-immersive VR
Apparatus
was VR suite
suite with
with the
the hardware
hardware shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 7.
7.
In order to evaluate the developed teaching methodology, the following performance measures
were recorded; completion time, accuracy, and number of frustration points. For the experimental
group, the teaching apparatus was a semi-immersive VR suite with the hardware shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Hardware used: (a) screen; (b) rear projector; (c) hand wand; (d) shutter glasses with head
Figure
tracker; 7. Hardware
(e) virtual used:
reality (VR) (a)hardware
screen; (b)controller
rear projector;
with(c)workstations;
hand wand; (d)(f)shutter glasses withwith
AMX controller headspace
tracker; (e) virtual
mouse and space ball. reality (VR) hardware controller with workstations; (f) AMX controller with space
mouse and space ball.

Figure 8 shows a student working under the VR environment for designing and configuring an
Figure 8 shows a student working under the VR environment for designing and configuring an
Industry 4.0 module
Industry
i.e. RMS
4.0 module i.e. system.
RMS system.

Figure 8. 8.Student
Figure Studentlearning in the
learning in theVR
VRenvironment.
environment.

Figure 8. Student learning in the VR environment.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 12 of 19
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

Figure 9 shows the Industry 4.0 RMS system in

in actual
actual shop
shop floor.
floor.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

Figure 9 shows the Industry 4.0 RMS system in actual shop floor.

Figure 9.
Figure Actual RMS
9. Actual RMS system
system in
in shop
shop floor.
floor.

For the control group, conventional classroom

Figure 9. Actual toolsin(smart
RMS system board, blackboard, etc.) were used
shop floor.
For the control group, conventional classroom tools (smart board, blackboard, etc.) were used
for teaching.
for teaching.
For the control group, conventional classroom tools (smart board, blackboard, etc.) were used
for teaching.
4.3. Results
4.3. Results
Table 3 depicts the results of the performance of the RMS configuration task at the shop floor. It
4.3. Results
Table 3 depicts the results of the performance of the RMS configuration task at the shop floor. It
shows the average and the standard deviation (S.D.) of each performance measure for the participants
shows theTable 3 depicts
average the standard
and the results of the performance
deviation (S.D.)ofofthe RMS
each configuration
performance task at the
measure forshop floor. It
the participants
from shows
two groups.
the Figure
average and 10
theshows thedeviation
standard completion time
(S.D.) of of participants
each performance from two
measure forgroups.
the participants
from two groups. Figure 10 shows the completion time of participants from two groups.
from two groups. Figure 10 shows the completion time of participants from two groups.
Table 3. Summarized results for performance measures.
Table 3. Summarized results for performance measures.
Table 3. Summarized results for performance measures.
Completion Time (mins.) Accuracy (Number of Errors) % Completion
Group Completion Time (mins.) Accuracy (Number of Errors) % Completion
Group Completion Time (mins.) Accuracy (Number
Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)of Errors) % Completion
Mean (S.D.)
Group Mean (S.D.) Mean(S.D.)
(S.D.) Mean (S.D.)
Mean (S.D.) Mean Mean (S.D.)
Experimental
Experimental 126.04
126.04(2.51)
(2.51) 1.20 (1.08)
1.20(1.08)
(1.08) 100
Experimental 126.04 (2.51) 1.20 100 100
Control 129.84 (5.89) 2.12 (1.76) 100
Control
Control 129.84
129.84(5.89)
(5.89) 2.12(1.76)
2.12 (1.76) 100 100

Figure
Figure 10.10. Completiontime
Completion time of
of participants
participantsfrom two
from groups.
two groups.

Figure 10. Completion time of participants from two groups.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 13 of 19

It can be
Sustainability seen
2019, 11, xfrom TableREVIEW
FOR PEER 3 that the experimental group completed the actual configuration 13 task
of 19
in less time than the participants from the control group. This proves the benefits of the VR-based
teaching
It canmethodology.
be seen from One Tableof3the
thatmajor advantages of
the experimental using
group the VR system
completed is that
the actual the participant
configuration task
or
in the
lessuser
timecan thaninteract with the digital
the participants objects
from the like group.
control in the real
Thisworld,
provesand
theitbenefits
provides ofathe
platform
VR-basedfor
learning by doing. The number of errors for the participants of experimental group
teaching methodology. One of the major advantages of using the VR system is that the participant or were also less than
that of thecan
the user control
interactgroup.
withAllthethe participants
digital objects completed
like in the the
realRMS
world,configuration to 100%
and it provides since there
a platform for
was no time
learning by limit.
doing. The number of errors for the participants of experimental group were also less
thanTo assess
that thecontrol
of the efficacygroup.
of VR-based
All theteaching, a brief
participants statisticalthe
completed analysis was also performed
RMS configuration to 100%for since
both
completion
there was notime timeand number of errors made by control group participants and experimental group
limit.
participants.
To assessTothe compare
efficacythe
of performance data, the
VR-based teaching, moststatistical
a brief suitable statistical test also
analysis was was performed
a two-sample for
t-test. A normality
both completion timecheck
and(Anderson–Darling)
number of errors made of the
byobtained data was
control group performed.
participants andThe following
experimental
hypothesis were made
group participants. Toto check the
compare thenormality.
performance data, the most suitable statistical test was a two-
sample t-test. A normality check (Anderson–Darling) of the obtained data was performed. The
Null hypothesis:
following hypothesis were made to check the normality.
Hypothesis 3. Data follow a normal distribution
Null hypothesis:
Hypothesishypothesis:
Alternative 3: Data follow a normal distribution
Alternative hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4. Data do not follow a normal distribution
Hypothesis 4: Data do not follow a normal distribution
Figure 11shows
Figure 11 shows
thethe results
results obtained
obtained for thefor the normality
normality test for completion
test for completion time of
time of experimental
experimental
group. group.

Probability Plot of Completion Time (Experimental)

Normal
99
Mean 1 26.0
StDev 2.508
95 N 25
AD 0.362
90
P-Value 0.41 7
80
70
Percent

60
50
40
30
20

10

1
1 20 1 22 1 24 1 26 1 28 1 30 1 32
Completion Time (Experimental)

Figure 11. Normality

Figure 11. Normality test
test of
of the
the completion
completion time
time data
data of
of the
the experimental
experimental group.
group.

The results indicate that the data follow a normal distribution. Because the p-value is 0.417, which
The results indicate that the data follow a normal distribution. Because the p-value is 0.417,
is greater than the significance level of 0.05, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. Similar
which is greater than the significance level of 0.05, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis.
tests were performed for other data, and the data came out to follow the normal distribution. Therefore,
Similar tests were performed for other data, and the data came out to follow the normal distribution.
two-sample t-test can be applied to the data. Two-sample t-test with a 95% confidence level was also
Therefore, two-sample t-test can be applied to the data. Two-sample t-test with a 95% confidence
performed to study the effect of the VR-based teaching methodology on the completion time of the
level was also performed to study the effect of the VR-based teaching methodology on the completion
time of the actual RMS configuration task. The results showed that the training method had a
significant effect on the completion time with p-value of 0.006. Since the p-value is less than 0.05, the
null hypothesis is rejected. This means the VR-based teaching methodology is better for teaching
complicated concepts of engineering. Similar results were obtained from a two-sample t-test of
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 14 of 19

actual RMS configuration task. The results showed that the training method had a significant effect on
the completion time with p-value of 0.006. Since the p-value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is
rejected. This
Sustainability means
2019, thePEER
11, x FOR VR-based
REVIEWteaching methodology is better for teaching complicated concepts 14 of 19
of engineering. Similar results were obtained from a two-sample t-test of number of errors (p-value =
numberFigure
0.032). of errors (p-value
12 shows the=box-plots
0.032). Figure
of the12 shows thetime
completion box-plots
for theof thegroups.
two completion time that
It depicts for the two
there is
groups. It depicts that there is a substantial difference in the
a substantial difference in the mean completion time of both groups. mean completion time of both groups.

Boxplot of Completion Time (Experimental), Completion Time (Control)

1 40

1 35
Data

1 30

1 25

1 20

Completion Time (Experimental) Completion Time (Control)

Figure 12. Boxplot of completion time of both groups.

Figure 12. Boxplot of completion time of both groups.
Furthermore, the proposed course outcomes were aligned with IED/KSU outcomes, which
Furthermore, the proposed course outcomes were aligned with IED/KSU outcomes, which fall
fall within four domain categories: (1) knowledge, (2) cognitive skills, (3) interpersonal skills and
within four domain categories: (1) knowledge, (2) cognitive skills, (3) interpersonal skills and
responsibility, (4) communication, information technology, and numerical skills. The course outcomes
responsibility, (4) communication, information technology, and numerical skills. The course
were numbered and listed in Table 4.
outcomes were numbered and listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Summarized results for performance measures.
Table 4. Summarized results for performance measures.
Code Learning Domains and Course Learning Outcomes
Code Learning Domains and Course Learning Outcomes
1.0 Knowledge
1.0 1.1 Recognize the necessary basic scienceKnowledge
and mathematics and gain the necessary engineering science
1.1 Recognize the necessary basic science and mathematics
2.0 Cognitive and gain the necessary engineering science
Skills
2.0 Design, develop, implement, and improve
Cognitive a process,
Skills a component or an integrated system under
2.1
realistic constraints.
Design, develop, implement, and improve a process, a component or an integrated system under
2.1 2.2 Use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary in engineering practice.
3.0 realistic constraints.
Interpersonal Skills & Responsibility
2.2 3.1 Use the techniques, skills, and
Judge andmodern engineering
evaluate tools necessary
the RMS development in engineering
and design issues practice.
3.0 3.2 Demonstrate theSkills
Interpersonal ability&toResponsibility
work effectively in a team
3.1 4.0 Judge andCommunication,
evaluate the RMS Information
developmentTechnology, Numerical
and design issues
4.1 Show ability to communicate and use of knowledge of contemporary issues
3.2 Demonstrate the ability to work effectively in a team
4.0 Communication, Information Technology, Numerical
4.1The results based on ability
Show learning outcome areand
to communicate shownuse ofinknowledge
Figure 13.of contemporary issues

The results based on learning outcome are shown in Figure 13.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 15 of 19
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT

100

80
Score out of 100

60

40
Score out of 100
20

0
1.1 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 4.1
Learning Outcome Code

Figure 13. Assessment of learning outcomes.

Figure 13. Assessment of learning outcomes.
Based on Figure 14, it can be said that most of the students provided a good score (above 70) for
Based on Figure 14, it can be said that most of the students provided a good score (above 70) for
the leaning outcomes that are relevant for this course (1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, and 4.1). Moreover, a survey
the leaning outcomes that are relevant for this course (1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, and 4.1). Moreover, a
was designed and distributed to a sample of 25 graduates to obtain their response scores related to
survey was designed and distributed to a sample of 25 graduates to obtain their response scores
course organization, methodology, supervisors, and acquired skills. The survey was distributed during
related to course organization, methodology, supervisors, and acquired skills. The survey was
the examination period in order to obtain a full response. The results shown in Figure 10 indicate that
distributed during the examination period in order to obtain a full response. The results shown in
most of the graduates believed in the effectiveness of the VR-based teaching method for concepts like
Figure 10 indicate that most of the graduates believed in the effectiveness of the VR-based teaching
Industry 4.0.
method for concepts like Industry 4.0.

Effectiveness of VR-based Teaching for Latest Concepts like

Industry 4.0

1% 1%

10%
Highly Agree

15% Agree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
73% Highly Disagree

Figure 14. Effectiveness of VR-based teaching for concepts

concepts like
like Industry
Industry 4.0.
4.0.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
An innovative view of teaching and training are crucial in Industry 4.0 to prepare students for
An innovative view of teaching and training are crucial in Industry 4.0 to prepare students for
the challenges of the actual shop floor environment. This emphasizes the importance of practical
the challenges of the actual shop floor environment. This emphasizes the importance of practical
applications built upon theoretical concepts. Rational and a logical methods, such as VR, are mandatory
applications built upon theoretical concepts. Rational and a logical methods, such as VR, are
to maintain the passion of the future generation and to train them with advanced systems and
mandatory to maintain the passion of the future generation and to train them with advanced systems
accomplish the objectives of sustainable manufacturing. In this work, a useful teaching method based
and accomplish the objectives of sustainable manufacturing. In this work, a useful teaching method
based on the concepts of VLS has been introduced. It was employed to train students on the advanced
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 16 of 19

on the concepts of VLS has been introduced. It was employed to train students on the advanced
concept of RMS through a well-established case study. The assessment of the proposed VR teaching
approach suggested that the majority of the graduates were satisfied with its effectiveness to learn about
advanced manufacturing concepts, such as the Industry 4.0 RMS paradigm. The proposed approach
also outperformed the traditional teaching methods in terms of user understanding and satisfaction,
number of errors, and completion time. Moreover, students were satisfied with the learning outcome of
the course and the effectiveness of the VR-based teaching methodology. Furthermore, the authors are
assured that teaching methods such as VLF are competent and efficient to meet the future requirements
of engineering education in Industry 4.0.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.S., M.K. and H.A.; Methodology, B.S., M.H.A. and S.H.M.; Formal
analysis, M.H.A; investigation, B.S. and M.K.; Resources, M.H.A. and H.A.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation,
B.S. and A.A.; Writing—Review and Editing, M.H.A., and S.H.M.; Visualization, M.H.A.; Supervision, B.S. and
H.A.; Funding Acquisition, B.S. and M.K.”.
Funding: This research was funded by Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University grant number
[RG-1438-088].
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud
University for funding this work through research group No. (RG-1438-088).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Piccarozzi, M.; Aquilani, B.; Gatti, C. Industry 4.0 in management studies: A systematic literature review.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3821. [CrossRef]
2. Kuts, V.; Otto, T.; Caldarola, E.G.; Modoni, G.E.; Sacco, M. Enabling the teaching factory leveraging a virtual
reality system based on the digital twin. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual EuroVR Conference, London,
UK, 22–23 October 2018; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Ltd.: Espoo, Finland, 2018; pp. 26–31.
3. Stachová, K.; Papula, J.; Stacho, Z.; Kohnová, L. External partnerships in employee education and
development as the key to facing industry 4.0 challenges. Sustainability 2019, 11, 345. [CrossRef]
4. ElMaraghy, W.; ElMaraghy, H.; Tomiyama, T.; Monostori, L. Complexity in engineering design and
manufacturing. CIRP Ann. 2012, 61, 793–814. [CrossRef]
5. Tolio, T.; Ceglarek, D.; ElMaraghy, H.A.; Fischer, A.; Hu, S.J.; Laperrière, L.; Newman, S.T.; Váncza, J.
Species—Co-evolution of products, processes and production systems. CIRP Ann. 2010, 59, 672–693.
[CrossRef]
6. Benešová, A.; Hirman, M.; Steiner, F.; Tupa, J. Analysis of education requirements for electronics
manufacturing within concept industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the 41st International Spring Seminar on
Electronics Technology (ISSE), University of Novi Sad, Zlatibor, Novi Sad, Serbia, 16–20 May 2018; pp. 1–5.
7. Abele, E.; Chryssolouris, G.; Sihn, W.; Metternich, J.; ElMaraghy, H.; Seliger, G.; Sivard, G.; ElMaraghy, W.;
Hummel, V.; Tisch, M.; et al. Learning factories for future oriented research and education in manufacturing.
CIRP Ann. 2017, 66, 803–826. [CrossRef]
8. Taxén, G.; Naeve, A. A system for exploring open issues in vr-based education. Comput. Graph. 2002, 26,
593–598. [CrossRef]
9. Abidi, M.H.; El-Tamimi, A.M.; Al-Ahmari, A.M. Virtual reality: Next generation tool for distance education.
Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2012, 2, 95–100.
10. Mourtzis, D.; Zogopoulos, V.; Vlachou, E. Augmented reality supported product design towards industry
4.0: A teaching factory paradigm. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 23, 207–212. [CrossRef]
11. Mourtzis, D.; Vlachou, E.; Dimitrakopoulos, G.; Zogopoulos, V. Cyber- physical systems and education
4.0—The teaching factory 4.0 concept. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 23, 129–134. [CrossRef]
12. Mourtzis, D. Development of Skills and Competences in Manufacturing Towards Education 4.0: A Teaching
Factory Approach. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Industry 4.0 Model for
Advanced Manufacturing, Belgrade, Serbia, 5–7 June 2018; Ni, J., Majstorovic, V., Djurdjanovic, D., Eds.;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 194–210.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 17 of 19

13. Abele, E.; Metternich, J.; Tisch, M.; Chryssolouris, G.; Sihn, W.; ElMaraghy, H.; Hummel, V.; Ranz, F. Learning
factories for research, education, and training. Procedia CIRP 2015, 32, 1–6. [CrossRef]
14. Wagner, U.; AlGeddawy, T.; ElMaraghy, H.; MŸller, E. The state-of-the-art and prospects of learning factories.
Procedia CIRP 2012, 3, 109–114. [CrossRef]
15. Weidig, C.; Menck, N.; Winkes, P.A.; Aurich, J.C. Virtual Learning Factory on vr-Supported Factory Planning.
In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 6–8 October
2014; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 455–462.
16. Hummel, V.; Westkamper, E. Learning factory for advanced industrial engineering—Integrated approach
of the digital learning environment and the physical model factory. In Production Engineering; University
Publishing House: Krakow, Poland, 2007; pp. 215–227.
17. ElMaraghy, H.; ElMaraghy, W. Learning integrated product and manufacturing systems. Procedia CIRP 2015,
32, 19–24. [CrossRef]
18. Baena, F.; Guarin, A.; Mora, J.; Sauza, J.; Retat, S. Learning factory: The path to industry 4.0. Procedia Manuf.
2017, 9, 73–80. [CrossRef]
19. Schreiber, S.; Funke, L.; Tracht, K. Bertha—A flexible learning factory for manual assembly. Procedia CIRP
2016, 54, 119–123. [CrossRef]
20. Jaeger, A.; Mayrhofer, W.; Kuhlang, P.; Matyas, K.; Sihn, W. Total immersion: Hands and heads-on training
in a learning factory for comprehensive industrial engineering education. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2013, 29, 23–32.
21. Bedolla, J.S.; D’Antonio, G.; Chiabert, P. A novel approach for teaching it tools within learning factories.
Procedia Manuf. 2017, 9, 175–181. [CrossRef]
22. Sampaio, A.Z.; Ferreira, M.M.; Rosário, D.P.; Martins, O.P. 3d and vr models in civil engineering education:
Construction, rehabilitation and maintenance. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 819–828. [CrossRef]
23. Dávideková, M.; Mjartan, M.; Greguš, M. Utilization of virtual reality in education of employees in slovakia.
Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 113, 253–260. [CrossRef]
24. Ahlberg, G.; Enochsson, L.; Gallagher, A.G.; Hedman, L.; Hogman, C.; McClusky, D.A., 3rd; Ramel, S.;
Smith, C.D.; Arvidsson, D. Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for
residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Am. J. Surg. 2007, 193, 797–804. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
25. Kaufmann, H.; Schmalstieg, D. Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality.
Comput. Graph. 2003, 27, 339–345. [CrossRef]
26. Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E.T.; Cifuentes, L.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Davis, T.J. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based
instruction on students’ learning outcomes in k-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Comput. Educ.
2014, 70, 29–40. [CrossRef]
27. Shin, D.; Yoon, E.S.; Lee, K.Y.; Lee, E.S. A web-based, interactive virtual laboratory system for unit operations
and process systems engineering education: Issues, design and implementation. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2002,
26, 319–330. [CrossRef]
28. Engum, S.A.; Jeffries, P.; Fisher, L. Intravenous catheter training system: Computer-based education versus
traditional learning methods. Am. J. Surg. 2003, 186, 67–74. [CrossRef]
29. Chen, C.J.; Toh, S.C.; Fauzy, W.M. The theoretical framework for designing desktop virtual reality-based
learning environments. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 2004, 15, 147–167.
30. Mourtzis, D.; Zogopoulos, V.; Katagis, I.; Lagios, P. Augmented reality based visualization of cam instructions
towards industry 4.0 paradigm: A cnc bending machine case study. Procedia CIRP 2018, 70, 368–373.
[CrossRef]
31. Masoni, R.; Ferrise, F.; Bordegoni, M.; Gattullo, M.; Uva, A.E.; Fiorentino, M.; Carrabba, E.; Di Donato, M.
Supporting remote maintenance in industry 4.0 through augmented reality. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 11,
1296–1302. [CrossRef]
32. Koren, Y.; Shpitalni, M. Design of reconfigurable manufacturing systems. J. Manuf. Syst. 2010, 29, 130–141.
[CrossRef]
33. Koren, Y.; Wang, W.; Gu, X. Value creation through design for scalability of reconfigurable manufacturing
systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 1227–1242. [CrossRef]
34. ElMaraghy, H.A. Changing and evolving products and systems—Models and enablers. In Changeable and
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems; ElMaraghy, H.A., Ed.; Springer: London, UK, 2009; pp. 25–45.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 18 of 19

35. Abele, E.; Tenberg, R.; Wennemer, J.; Cachay, J. Production Skills Development in Learning Factories
[Kompetenzenzwicklung in Lernfabriken für die Produktion]. J. Econ. Fact. Oper. 2010, 105, 909–913.
[CrossRef]
36. Farid, A.M. Measures of reconfigurability and its key characteristics in intelligent manufacturing systems.
J. Intell. Manuf. 2017, 28, 353–369. [CrossRef]
37. Farid, A.M.; McFarlane, D.C. A tool for assessing reconfigurability of distributed manufacturing systems.
IFAC Proc. Vol. 2006, 39, 523–528. [CrossRef]
38. Goyal, K.K.; Jain, P.K.; Jain, M. A novel methodology to measure the responsiveness of rmts in reconfigurable
manufacturing system. J. Manuf. Syst. 2013, 32, 724–730. [CrossRef]
39. Mehrabi, M.G.; Ulsoy, A.G.; Koren, Y. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: Key to future manufacturing.
J. Intell. Manuf. 2000, 11, 403–419. [CrossRef]
40. Heilala, J.; Voho, P. Modular reconfigurable flexible final assembly systems. Assem. Autom. 2001, 21, 20–30.
[CrossRef]
41. Calle, M.; González-R, P.L.; Leon, J.M.; Pierreval, H.; Canca, D. Integrated management of inventory and
production systems based on floating decoupling point and real-time information: A simulation based
analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 181, 48–57. [CrossRef]
42. González-R, P.L.; Framinan, J.M.; Pierreval, H. Token-based pull production control systems: An introductory
overview. J. Intell. Manuf. 2012, 23, 5–22. [CrossRef]
43. Padayachee, J.; Bright, G. The design of reconfigurable assembly stations for high variety and mass
customisation manufacturing. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2013, 24, 15. [CrossRef]
44. Ho, J.K.L. A proposed approach for reconfiguration of flexible assembly line systems by motion genes. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 2005, 43, 1729–1749. [CrossRef]
45. Michalos, G.; Sipsas, P.; Makris, S.; Chryssolouris, G. Decision making logic for flexible assembly lines
reconfiguration. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2016, 37, 233–250. [CrossRef]
46. Kong, Z.; Ceglarek, D. Fixture workspace synthesis for reconfigurable assembly using procrustes-based
pairwise configuration optimization. J. Manuf. Syst. 2006, 25, 25–38. [CrossRef]
47. Moon, Y.-M.; Kota, S. Design of reconfigurable machine tools. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2002, 124, 480–483.
[CrossRef]
48. Olabanji, O.M.; Mpofu, K. Comparison of weighted decision matrix, and analytical hierarchy process for cad
design of reconfigurable assembly fixture. Procedia CIRP 2014, 23, 264–269. [CrossRef]
49. Kong, Z.; Cegiarek, D. Rapid deployment of reconfigurable assembly fixtures using workspace synthesis
and visibility analysis. CIRP Ann. 2003, 52, 13–16. [CrossRef]
50. Fasth-Berglund, Å.; Stahre, J. Cognitive automation strategy for reconfigurable and sustainable assembly
systems. Assem. Autom. 2013, 33, 294–303. [CrossRef]
51. Mills, J.J.; Criswell, T.; Huff, B.; Liles, D. The dynamically reconfigurable assembly system. In Human Aspects
in Computer Integrated Manufacturing; Olling, G.J., Kimura, F., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
1992; pp. 585–591.
52. Cheikh, S.B.; Hajri-Gabouj, S.; Darmoul, S. Manufacturing configuration selection under arduous working
conditions: A multi-criteria decision approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Operations Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8–10 March 2016.
53. Jefferson, T.G.; Crossley, R.; Smith, T.; Ratchev, S. Review of Reconfigurable Assembly Systems Technologies for
cost Effective Wing Structure Assembly; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2013.
54. Ali-Qureshi, Z.; ElMaraghy, W.H. Procurement of reconfigurable assembly system a justification for effective
production ramp-up planning. Procedia CIRP 2014, 16, 164–169. [CrossRef]
55. Kashkoush, M.; ElMaraghy, H. Product family formation for reconfigurable assembly systems. Procedia CIRP
2014, 17, 302–307. [CrossRef]
56. Ascheri, A.; Ippolito, M.; Colombo, G.; Furini, F.; Atzeni, E. Automatic configuration of a powertrain
assembly line layout based on a kbe approach. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Emerging Technology and
Factory Automation (ETFA), Barcelona, Spain, 16–19 September 2014; pp. 1–4.
57. Lafou, M.; Mathieu, L.; Pois, S.; Alochet, M. Manufacturing system configuration: Flexibility analysis for
automotive mixed-model assembly lines. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015, 48, 94–99. [CrossRef]
58. Landherr, M.; Westkämper, E. Integrated product and assembly configuration using systematic
modularization and flexible integration. Procedia CIRP 2014, 17, 260–265. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477 19 of 19

59. Modrak, V.; Marton, D.; Bednar, S. The influence of mass customization strategy on configuration complexity
of assembly systems. Procedia CIRP 2015, 33, 538–543. [CrossRef]
60. Sayed, M.S.; Lohse, N. Distributed bayesian diagnosis for modular assembly systems—A case study. J. Manuf.
Syst. 2013, 32, 480–488. [CrossRef]
61. Weyer, S.; Schmitt, M.; Ohmer, M.; Gorecky, D. Towards industry 4.0—Standardization as the crucial
challenge for highly modular, multi-vendor production systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015, 48, 579–584.
[CrossRef]
62. Dale, E. Audiovisual Methods in Teaching; Dryden Press: New York, NY, USA, 1969.
63. Cheikh, S.B.; Hajri-Gabouj, S.; Darmoul, S. Reconfiguring manufacturing systems using an analytic hierarchy
process with strategic and operational indicators. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM), Dubai, UAE, 3–5 March 2015; pp. 1–6.
64. Bougrine, A.; Darmoul, S.; Hajri-Gabouj, S. Topsis based multi-criteria reconfiguration of manufacturing
systems considering operational and ergonomic indicators. In Proceedings of the 2017 International
Conference on Advanced Systems and Electric Technologies (IC_ASET), Hammamet, Tunisia, 14–17 January
2017; pp. 329–334.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).