Towards the Trust Model for Industry 4.0

  • Marina Harlamova
  • Marite KirikovaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 838)


In highly networked systems, such as Industry 4.0, it is essential to take care that only trustworthy elements participate in the network, otherwise the security of the system might be compromised and its functionality negatively influenced. Therefore it is important to identify whether the nodes in the network can be trusted by other elements of the system. There are different approaches for trust evaluation available in a variety of domains. However, the Industry 4.0 involves both human and artificial participants and imposes human-human, artifact-artifact; and human-artifact relationships in the system. This requires comparable interpretation and representation of trust in several areas. For this purpose the paper discusses trust interpretations and proposes trust models and trust dimensions in three areas relevant to Industry 4.0, namely, in the area of human-human interaction, in the area of human interaction with IT solutions, and in ad-hoc distributed sensing systems.


Trust Trust dimension Trust model Industry 4.0 


  1. 1.
    Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., Helbig, J.: Securing the future of German manufacturing industry. Acatech (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    i-SCOOP: 17 March 2018.
  3. 3.
    Li, X., Li, D., Wan, J., Vasilakos, A.V., Lai, C.F., Wang, S.: A review of industrial wireless networks in the context of Industry 4.0. Wirel. Netw. 23(1), 23–41 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Science Foundation, Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS): 27 April 2018.
  5. 5.
    Zhu, C., Rodrigues, J.J.P.C., Leung, V.C.M., Shu, L., Yang, L.T.: Trust-based communication for the industrial Internet of Things. IEEE Commun. Mag. 56(2), 16–22 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jeong, S., Na, W., Kim, J., Cho, S.: Internet of Things for smart manufacturing system: trust issues in resource allocation. IEEE Internet Things J. (Early Access). i-SCOOP, 17 March 2018.
  7. 7.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 709–734 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., Camerer, C.: Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 393–404 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nooteboom, B.: Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heimer, C.A.: Solving the problem of trust. In: Cook, K.S. (ed.) Trust in Society, pp. 40–88. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hardin, R.: Conceptions and explanations of trust. In: Cook, K.S. (ed.) Trust in Society, pp. 3–39. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H.: An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32(2), 344–354 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fukuyama, F.: Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trček, D.: A brief overview of trust and reputation over various domains. Trust and Reputation Management Systems. SIS, pp. 5–19. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisenegger, M.: Trust and reputation in the age of globalisation. In: Klewes, J., Wreschniok, R. (eds.) Reputation Capital. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Söllner, M., Hoffmann, A., Hoffmann, H., Wacker, A., Leimeister, J.M.: Understanding the formation of trust in IT artifacts. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Staub, D.W.: Trust and tam in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27(1), 51–90 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Talboom, S., Pierson, J.: Understanding trust within online discussion boards: trust formation in the absence of reputation systems. In: Fernández-Gago, C., Martinelli, F., Pearson, S., Agudo, I. (eds.) IFIPTM 2013. IAICT, vol. 401, pp. 83–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee, J., Moray, N.: Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine. Ergonomics 35(10), 1243–1270 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noor, T.H., Sheng, Q.Z., Bouguettaya, A.: Trust Management in Cloud Services. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pawar, P.S., Rajarajan, M., Dimitrakos, T., Zisman, A.: Trust model for cloud based on cloud characteristics. In: Fernández-Gago, C., Martinelli, F., Pearson, S., Agudo, I. (eds.) IFIPTM 2013. IAICT, vol. 401, pp. 239–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmarc, C.: The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 11, 297–323 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vance, A., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., Straub, D.: Examining trust in information technology artifacts: the effects of system quality and culture. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(4), 73–100 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palmer, G., Selwyn, A., Zwillinger, D.: The “Trust V”: building and measuring trust in autonomous systems. In: Mittu, R., Sofge, D., Wagner, A., Lawless, W.F. (eds.) Robust Intelligence and Trust in Autonomous Systems, pp. 55–77. Springer, Boston, MA (2016). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Janani, V.S., Manikandan, M.S.K.: Efficient trust management with Bayesian-evidence theorem to secure public key infrastructure-based mobile ad hoc networks. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2018, 25 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zahariadis, T., Leligou, H.C., Trakadas, P., Voliotis, S.: Trust management in wireless sensor networks. Trans. Emerg. Telecommun. Technol. 21(4), 386–395 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Michiardi, P., Molva, R.: Core: a collaborative reputation mechanism to enforce node cooperation in mobile ad hoc networks. In: Jerman-Blažič, B., Klobučar, T. (eds.) Advanced Communications and Multimedia Security. ITIFIP, vol. 100, pp. 107–121. Springer, Boston, MA (2002). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Buchegger, S., Boudec, J.Y.L.: Performance analysis of the CONFIDANT protocol (Cooperation of Nodes – Fairness in Dynamic Ad-hoc NeTworks). In: The 3rd ACM International Symposium Mobile Ad-hoc Networking & Computing (MobiHoc 2002), Lausanne, CH (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Feng, R., Che, S., Wang, X.: A credible routing based on a novel trust mechanism in ad hoc networks. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 9(4), 652051 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li, X., Jia, Z., Zhang, P., Zhang, R., Wang, H.: Trust-based on-demand multipath routing. IET Inf. Secur. 4(4), 212–232 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ganeriwal, S., Balzano, L., Srivastava, M.: Reputation-based framework for high integrity sensor networks. ACM Trans. Sens. Netw. 4, 1–37 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhaoyu, L., Joy, A.W., Thompson, R.A.: A dynamic trust model for mobile ad hoc networks. In: IEEE International Workshop on Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang, Q., Yu, V., Ning, P.: A Framework for Identifying Compromised Nodes in Sensor Networks. In: Securecomm and Workshops (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yao, Z., Kim, D., Doh, Y.: PLUS: Parameterized and localized trUst management scheme for sensor networks security. In: International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Momani, M., Challa, S.: Survey of trust models in different network domains. Int. J. Ad Hoc Sens. Ubiquit. Comput. 1(3), 1 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pirzada, A.A., McDonald, C.: Establishing trust in pure ad-hoc networks. In: The 27th Australasian Conference on Computer Science, Dunedin, New Zealand (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Krasniewski, M., Varadharajan, P., Rabeler, B., Bagchi, S., Hu, Y.C.: TIBFIT: Trust index based fault tolerance for arbitrary data faults in sensor. In: International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2005), Yokohama, Japan (2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cordasco, J., Wetzel, S.: Cryptographic versus trust-based methods for MANET routing security. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 197(2), 131–140 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rajkumar, B., Narsimha, D.G.: Trust based certificate revocation for secure routing. Procedia Comput. Sci. 92, 431–441 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kamvar, S.D., Schlosser, M.T., Garcia-Molina, H.: The Eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2003, Budapest, Hungary (2003)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ye, Z., Wen, T., Liu, Z., Song, X., Fu, C.: An efficient dynamic trust evaluation model for wireless sensor networks. J. Sens. 2017, 16 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hur, J., Lee, Y., Yoon, H., Choi, D., Jin, S.: Trust evaluation model for wireless sensor networks. In: The 7th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, Phoenix Park, South Korea (2005)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43(2), 618–644 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Riga Technical UniversityRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations