Very well into the dawn of the fourth industrial revolution (industry 4.0), humankind can hardly distinguish between what is artificial and what is natural (e.g., man-made virus and natural virus). Thus, the level of discombobulation among people, companies, or countries is indeed unprecedented. The fact that industry 4.0 is explosively disrupting or retrofitting each and every industrial sector makes industry 4.0 the famous buzzword amongst researchers today. However, the insight of industry 4.0 disruption into the industrial sectors remains ill-defined in both academic and nonacademic literature. The present study aimed at identifying industry 4.0 neologisms, understanding the industry 4.0 disruption and illustrating the disruptive technology convergence in the major industrial sectors. A total of 99 neologisms of industry 4.0 were identified. Industry 4.0 disruption in the education industry (education 4.0), energy industry (energy 4.0), agriculture industry (agriculture 4.0), healthcare industry (healthcare 4.0), and logistics industry (logistics 4.0) was described. The convergence of 12 disruptive technologies including 3D printing, artificial intelligence, augmented reality, big data, blockchain, cloud computing, drones, Internet of Things, nanotechnology, robotics, simulation, and synthetic biology in agriculture, healthcare, and logistics industries was illustrated. The study divulged the need for extensive research to expand the application areas of the disruptive technologies in the industrial sectors.

Very well into the dawn of the fourth industrial revolution (industry 4.0), we hardly distinguish between what is artificial and what is natural (e.g. man-made virus and natural virus). Thus, the level of discombobulation among people, companies or countries is indeed unprecedented. The fact that industry 4.0 is explosively disrupting or retrofitting each and every industrial sector, makes industry 4.0 the famous buzzword amongst researchers today. However, the insight of industry 4.0 disruption in the industrial sectors remains ill-defined in both academic and non-academic literature. The present study aimed at identifying industry 4.0 neologisms, understanding the industry 4.0 disruption and illustrating the disruptive technologies convergence in the major industrial sectors. A total of 99 neologisms of industry 4.0 were identified. Industry 4.0 disruption in Education industry (Education 4.0), Energy industry (Energy 4.0), Agriculture industry (Agriculture 4.0), Healthcare industry (Healthcare 4.0), and Logistics industry (Logistics 4.0) are described. The convergence of 12 disruptive technologies including 3D printing, Artificial intelligence, Augmented reality, Big Data, Blockchain, Cloud computing, Drones, Internet of things, Nanotechnology, Robotics, Simulation and Synthetic biology in agriculture, healthcare and logistics industries are illustrated.

Ensuring the sub national level in the health system can function effectively is central to attainment of health results in countries. However, the current health agenda has not prioritized how districts can deploy their existing resources effectively, to maximize the efficiency equity and effectiveness in their use. Ghana initiated a self-assessment process to understand the functionality of districts to deliver on health results. The assessment was conducted by health managers in 33 districts during August–October 2022 using tools pre-developed by the World Health Organization. Functionality was explored around service provision, oversight, and management capacities, each with defined dimensions and attributes. The objective of the study was to highlight specific functionality improvements needed by districts in terms of investments and access to service delivery in achieving Universal Health Care. The results showed a lack of correlation between functionality and performance as is currently defined in Ghana; a higher functionality of oversight capacity compared to service provision or management capacities; and specifically low functionality for dimensions relating to capacity to make available quality services, responsiveness to beneficiaries and the systems and three structures for health management. The findings highlight the need to shift from quantitative outcome indicator-based performance approaches to measures of total health and wellbeing of beneficiaries. Specific functionality improvements are needed to improve the engagement and answerability to the beneficiaries, investments in access to services, and in building management architecture.

No abstract