Simões - 2020 Cobots

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 57 (2020) 101574
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Engineering and

Technology Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jengtecman
Factors influencing the intention of managers to adopt

T
collaborative robots (cobots) in manufacturing organizations
Ana Correia Simões*, António Lucas Soares, Ana Cristina Barros
INESC TEC, FEUP Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Campus FEUP, R. Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT
Keywords: This study identified and characterized the factors influencing managers’ intentions to adopt
Collaborative robots (cobots) collaborative robots (cobots) in manufacturing companies. Based on a conceptual framework that
Technology adoption integrates three technology adoption theories (Diffusion of Innovation, Technology-organization-
Diffusion of innovation theory (DoI) environment and Institutional theory) and following an exploratory qualitative research design,
Technology-organization-environment (TOE)
this paper identifies 39 factors influencing the intention to adopt cobots in three contexts (in-
Institutional theory
Manufacturing
ternal, external and technology). Twelve of these factors are new as contrasted with previous
literature. The findings of this study can assist organizations in their process of adoption of cobots
and in the development of managerial practices that consider the role of these factors.
1. Introduction
To handle current business challenges such as product complexity, shorter product life cycles, customization, rapid time-to-
market and increased international competition, manufacturing organizations continuously seek for flexibility, changeability and
adaptability of their processes (Brettel et al., 2014; De Carolis et al., 2016). A close cooperation between the worker and the au-
tomated systems is an emergent strategy to address those challenges (Krüger et al., 2009). The safe and flexible cooperation between
machines and humans matches the strength and the efficiency of robots with the high degree of dexterity and the cognitive cap-
abilities of humans, achieving better productivity at the most flexible overall system (Lenz and Knoll., 2014; Hägele et al., 2002).
Research and practice in the implementation of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs) in general, and industrial robots in
particular, brought us to relevant lessons learned. For instance, the automation of certain activities is only successful if significant
changes in organization, design and production are made. Other activities can be successfully automated by integrating advanced
equipment with existing equipment and human workers (Hason, 1994). Smith and Dieterly (1980) highlighted that the introduction
of automation into a system fail to achieve the promised performance improvement and also results in major system failures. Thus,
higher levels of automation do not necessarily guarantee higher levels of productivity, safety, or operator well-being, as they may
induce other problems, such as confusion, complacency, or loss of certain skills (Parasuraman and Riley, 1997). According to Smith
and Dieterly. (1980) these facts can occur because the concept of automation encompasses many varied applications and is not itself a
single variable. The challenges faced by manufacturing practitioners during three decades of automation related technologies im-
plementation are still pressing today’s managers. However, besides the steep technological evolution leading to AMTs, the im-
plementation context poses additional challenges.
Hence, the adoption of collaborative robots (cobots) poses new, multi-faceted challenges to management. Technological chal-
lenges begin by the robot technology itself being increasingly sophisticated, even though the simplification of the programming and
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ana.c.simoes@inesctec.pt (A. Correia Simões), als@fe.up.pt (A. Lucas Soares), ana.c.barros@inesctec.pt (A.C. Barros).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101574
Received 12 March 2019; Received in revised form 5 May 2020; Accepted 9 May 2020
0923-4748/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Correia Simões, et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 57 (2020) 101574
control interfaces that have been steadily proposed, and that improve significantly the user experience (Djuric et al., 2016; Kildal
et al., 2018). Architectural and interoperability issues deem very important, as standards such as RAMI 4.0 and FIWARE are still a
novelty for most of the companies (Thoben et al., 2017; Bordeleau et al., 2018; Zahariadis et al., 2014). The organisational dimension
is much more problematic and less studied, as new challenges for the working systems in industry arise (Schmidtler et al., 2015). One
crucial challenge in this dimension is the gap between the required and the actual competencies of the workers. The rate of tech-
nological innovation in this area is high, meaning that more agile learning processes must be put in place (Moffat and Gray, 2015).
Another important challenge is the need to change job structures and careers paths, as serious recruitment difficulties, high employee
turnover and workers ageing population make difficult to maintain a highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce (Degryse, 2016).
Furthermore, the design and management of operations and business processes will increasingly unroll in a symbiotic human-ma-
chine environment, making necessary more research on their co-evolution (Döppner et al., 2019). Last, but not the least, current
financial models are not prepared to, for example, estimate the return on the investment of a technology that has unknown con-
sequences (Bauer et al., 2016).
The challenges described above are only surfaced in the extant literature. There’s in fact a need for more field knowledge re-
garding the factors that influence the managers of manufacturing organizations when considering cobots to cope with the identified
business challenges. Some empirical studies on the factors that influence the adoption decision and implementation of AMTs are
dispersed in the literature. For example Damanpour (1991) made an extensive meta-analysis to identify relationships between or-
ganizational innovation and 13 of its potential determinants in the internal organizational context, while Iacovou, Benbasat, and
Dexter (1995) identify the government role as an important factor in the external context.
Although, some empirical studies address cobots as innovations, to the best of our knowledge only a few have focused on the
adoption aspects. There are studies about concerns, preferences and expectations for the adoption of cobots, mostly within the areas
of production technology and manufacturing systems research (e.g. Kildal et al. (2018); Huber et al. (2008); Buchner et al. (2013)),
about the effects of digitalization (which includes robots) on employment (Freddi, 2018) and studies reporting the experiences of
companies in planning and actually using cobots in their production lines (Bauer et al., 2016). On the other side, there are decades of
research on management of innovation and adoption of technology by organisations. Several studies tried to integrate theoretical
perspectives of technology adoption and user acceptance models addressing all stages of the adoption process, from initiation through
adoption-decision and then implementation (e.g. Hameed et al., 2012conceptual model). However, none of them seem complete
enough to encompass a thorough understanding of the factors that influence managers when deciding on the adoption of cobots.
From the literature review and our own empirical experience on conducting cobots innovation projects, we concluded that the
technology/innovation, external/environment and internal/organisational contexts are the categories needed to better conceptualise
the adoption factors that influence managers in their intention to adopt cobots in manufacturing organisations. Although several
questions can be addressed regarding the adoption of cobots such as the social and the challenges faced by the human operator in a
collaboration environment, this research focus on the question: “What are the factors that influence managers in their intention to
adopt cobots in the manufacturing context?”. In order to identify and characterize those factors the starting point was a conceptual
framework that integrates three adoption theories from literature (Simões et al., 2018) and performed an exploratory research by
collecting data through interviews to thirteen technology managers from eleven manufacturing companies.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. First, the current state of cobots, its role and application are reviewed. Next, an
overview of the main adoption models and how they could be combined is explored and the methodological procedures used in the
research are described. Then, the decision factors and their relationships are identified and characterised in three main contexts:
internal, external and technology. Finally, research findings are discussed and considerations and implications are presented.
2. Literature review
2.1. Collaborative robots (cobots)
A cobot is a robotic device which manipulates objects and works directly alongside humans without safety fencing or barriers in
the manufacturing floor (Colgate et al., 1996; Bauer et al., 2016). Cobots are considered a new technology (advanced manufacturing
technology) that is primarily characterized by the fact that the robots’ and operators’ work zones overlap, creating a common
workspace. A study featuring 25 applications of cobots in German companies that explores the most important factors and conditions
in play (Bauer et al., 2016), gives an overview of what is already possible to know about this technology. According to this study
humans and robots primarily work alongside each other in a form of coexistence (both interaction partners may have tasks to perform
at the same time in the shared workspace, but they do not work simultaneously on the same product or component), an arrangement
in which the new technology is very reliable. However, collaborative applications (human and robot work simultaneously on the
same product or component) are virtually non-existent in production facilities at Bauer et al’s studytime.
The main objectives reported by manufacturing companies to introduce cobots in the manufacturing processes are fundamentally
to improve productivity, flexibility and quality. Other aspects such as safety, ergonomics, trust and potential future trends on jobs are
also considered very important by managers and operators (Kildal et al., 2018; Charalambous, 2016; Bauer et al., 2016). Interacting
robots and humans are intended to improve complex manufacturing processes, particularly when a robot can be guided by a worker
and the robot provides power support to the worker, mostly involving difficult, monotonous or exhausting tasks (Krüger et al., 2009).
Advances in sensors, actuators and data processing have been improving the degree of assistance and support (Krüger et al., 2009;
Fryman and Matthias, 2012). The human should be part of production processes when he/she is needed, otherwise he can con-
centrate on other tasks to improve the overall system performance (Lenz and Knoll., 2014.
2
In the adoption process for cobots, managers and operators are deemed to understand well their functions and capabilities. The
major challenge is the coexistence of operational efficiency and hard safety requirements (Bauer et al., 2016; Huber et al., 2008). Due
to the novelty of this technology, operational efficiency is usually measured considering different aspects when compared to the
traditional robots: traditional analysis of efficiency and profitability is not usually carried out by companies that have adopted cobots
(Bauer et al., 2016). Other adoption criteria are difficult to measure in monetary terms, such as improved ergonomics (assisting
human worker with both physical and mental workloads), improved quality (meeting the customers’ requirements) and improved
flexibility (e.g. batch sizes). Nevertheless, these are considered important reasons to adopt this technology (Bauer et al., 2016). As for
the safety requirements, it is important to understand that a safe environment will depend on the way that the robot interacts with the
human. In collaborative work, where the robots and human share the same space, undesired contact between humans and robots may
occur not only during the production tasks, but also when setting up, maintaining and cleaning machines, etc. Thus, the priority is
always to guarantee worker’s safety while simultaneously avoiding intermittent interference in the robot’s work (Kildal et al., 2018;
Huber et al., 2008)
The cobots acceptance by operators and managers is influenced by the factors that are known for the adoption of new tech-
nologies in general. Experience shows that acceptance from human workers is achieved only when they are involved in the im-
plementation process from the first day (for example defining the work conditions). Moreover, other factors such as strategy com-
munication (transparent link between cobot implementations and company objectives), climate of trust and confidence (efficient
communication channels) and efficient human resources development (effective training programs) also contribute to a better ac-
ceptance by the human workers (Bauer et al., 2016).
However, specific factors need to be considered as well. Human-robot collaboration offers significant potential for improving the
design of work content and how work is organized (Bauer et al., 2016). Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the work system will
enable a work division that will make sense for a given organization regarding productivity, ergonomics and safety (Kadir et al.,
2018; Asplund et al., 2017). It is important to know how these and new aspects and concerns, which are reflected in diverse contexts,
influence the adoption (or the intention to adopt) cobots.
2.2. Adoption models
The adoption of new technologies to improve the efficiency as well as to respond to market pressures is influenced by several
factors in different contexts (Gibbs and Kraemer., 2004; Rajan and Baral., 2015; Nilsen and Nyberg., 2016; Wu and Chiu., 2015). In
this study, the focus is in the technology adoption. In order to identify and characterize the factors that influence managers in their
intention to adopt cobots in manufacturing organizations, three key theories, commonly used in innovation diffusion and adoption
studies in organizations, were adopted: the diffusion of innovation (DoI) theory (Rogers, 2003), the technology-organization-en-
vironment (TOE) framework (Tornatzky and Fleischer., 1990) and the Institutional theory (INT) theory (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983). These theories have been used to offer a variety of interesting and helpful perspectives in adoption process of different
technologies used by organizations. This study uses them to provide an integrated vision regarding the factors that influence the
intention to adopt cobots. In the following sections a brief explanation of these theories, regarding the objectives of this study, is
given. Other well-known theories such as the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989, 1985), the theory of planned
behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003) are not
considered in this research because they pertain to an individual’s choice, so they are out of the scope of this paper.
2.2.1. Diffusion of innovation theory (DoI)

The Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) theory developed by Rogers (2003) is widely used to explain the organizational adoption and
diffusion processes (e.g.Parmentola et al., 2015). This theory is predominantly based on characteristics of the technology and the
users’ perceptions of the innovation. An innovation is defined as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual
or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 2003, 12). In this context, a cobot in considered an innovation. A five-step innovation-decision
process is proposed by Rogers (2003): knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. Before making a decision
(to adopt or reject an innovation), the decision-makers need to gain some understanding of the innovation, how it functions
(knowledge), and then form either a favourable or unfavourable attitude toward it (persuasion). Three factors influence the adoption
of innovation in organizations: individual characteristics (leadership attitude toward change); internal characteristics of the orga-
nizational structure (centralization, complexity, interconnectedness, number of employee and organizational slack); and external
characteristics (system openness) of the organization. Moreover, five key characteristics of the innovation that affect innovation
adoption are relative advantages, complexity, compatibility, trialability and observability. Therefore, the adoption process of tech-
nological innovations is not only related to the characteristics of the innovation itself, but also associated with the internal orga-
nizational structure, external organizational characteristics, and leaders’ attitudes.
2.2.2. Technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework

Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) proposed the TOE framework and explain that the decision to adopt an innovation, such as
technology, is influenced by factors in three contexts: technology, organization, and environment. The technology context includes
the internal and external technologies that are relevant to the organization, as well as the technologies that are available for possible
adoption. The organizational context refers to the internal characteristics and resources of the organization, including the organi-
zation size, degree of centralization, degree of formalization, managerial structure, quality and degree of its human resources. The
environment context refers to the field in which the organization conducts its business in and is dealing with. Includes market
3
elements, competitors, and the regulatory environment. There are factors, external to organization, that can present constraints and
opportunities to adopt technological innovations. TOE is an organizational-level framework explaining that the three different
contexts may influence the decision to adopt technological innovations. Therefore, this framework is considered suitable for un-
derstanding how factors in these three contexts influence the intention of managers to adopt cobots in manufacturing organizations.
2.2.3. Institutional theory (INT)

Institutional theory is another theory used by many scholars to study the technology adoption process (e.g.Gibbs and Kraemer.,
2004); Teo et al., 2003; Sun et al. (2018)). This theory highlights that institutions are comprised of cultural-cognitive, normative, and
regulative elements, that together provide stability and meaning to social life (Scott, 2001). According to this theory an organization
is considered an institution with its own rules, cultures, social structures and routines. Additionally, a company is integrated within
larger institutions, including the supply chains, industry and country, and consequently these organizational structures and norms are
affected not only by economic motivations, but also by social and political motivations. In this context this theory provides a useful
point of view for innovation adoption since it defends that the adoption process is affected by external factors (Oliver, 1997).
Therefore, organizational technology adoption decisions are not only driven by rational goals of efficiency, but also by social and
cultural factors and the need for organizational legitimacy (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Dacin et al., 2002). The institutional en-
vironment where the organization is embedded leads to three types of isomorphic pressures: coercive, mimetic, and normative
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).Coercive pressures are defined as formal or informal pressures exerted on organizations by other
organizations (for example by dominant customers, suppliers) upon which they are dependent. Imitative or mimetic pressures may
cause an organization to change over time to become more like other organizations in its environment. Finally, normative pressure is
an environmental influence that leads to conformity, since they motivate conformance to widely accepted norms and structures
within the environment. Based on this theory, pressures from customers, competitors, trading partners, and governments can all
potentially affect an organisation decision to adopt cobots.
2.3. Combining DoI, TOE and INT
This study uses an integrated framework that combines the above-mentioned theories, DoI, TOE, and INT to identify the con-
textual environments - internal, external and technology (Simões et al., 2018).
The TOE framework contributes to define the main contexts (Internal, External and Technology). Although the DoI theory also
referred these contexts the empirical studies used this theory mainly to identify the Internal and the Technology contexts. The INT
theory has been used in the empirical studies to identify factors in the external context.
The factors that influence the intention to adopt new technologies in manufacturing, identified in Fig. 1, were collected from
literature that apply these theories (Simões et al., 2018). A brief explanation of each contextual environment is given in the next
sections.
2.3.1. Internal context

Some organizational (internal) characteristics such as size, age, type, and top management support/management attitude toward
technology, are the most studied organizational factors influencing the organization innovation adoption processes (Sohal et al.,
2006; Chan and Chong, 2013; Wang et al., 2010). However, there are other non-structural factors with consistent empirical evidence
as factors of organizational adoption (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). For the purpose of this study internal context is characterized
including the factors rearranged in the following areas:
• Structural factors (size, age, decentralization and slack of resources)

• Receptive internal context for change: incorporates organizational features that have been independently associated with its
ability to support new ideas and face the possibility of change.
• Organizational readiness (includes technological readiness): implementing new technologies requires new technological skills,
new technological components and adaptation of existing technologies.
2.3.2. External context

External environmental factors, outside of the control of organizations, can have influence on the adoption and implementation of
technologies (Awa, Uko, and Ukoha 2017; Greenhalgh et al., 2004). According to some studies these factors influence the adoption of
innovative technology (Zhu, Kraemer, and Xu 2003; Iacovou et al., 1995). The factors in the external environment were distributed
considering two sub-contexts: inter-organizational sub-context and socio-political sub-context. In the inter-organizational sub-con-
text, it is important to notice that normative pressure is an environmental influence that leads to conformity; organizations often
adopt new practices because similar organizations do so or plan to do so (Awa et al., 2017; Bosch and Klett, 2010; Greenhalgh et al.,
2004; Teo et al., 2003). In Table 1 the major influences are described for each sub-context.
2.3.3. Technology context

Most innovation characteristics considered by DoI theory (Rogers, 2003) concern to attributes that influence the perceptions of
potential users about the innovation. The most well-established attributes are: relative advantage (usually measured in economic
terms), external observability, trialability, compatibility, and complexity. However, Rogers (2003) advises that these five perceived
attributes may not always be the most important for a particular set of potential adopters. Therefore, it is important to know other
4
Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework (based on Simões et al., 2018).
Table 1
Major influences for each external sub-context.
Inter-organizational sub-context
Competitive pressure Competitive pressure has been identified as an important factor of information technologies adoption
(Zhu et al., 2003; Kuan and Chau 2001). To seek competitive advantages in a competitive global
market, organizations strive to adopt innovations (Meyers, Sivakumar, and Nakata 1999).
Business partner pressure Several empirical studies have found that pressure from business partners may have a positive
influence in the adoption of new technologies (Iacovou et al., 1995; Gibbs and Kraemer 2004; Teo
et al., 2003; Deephouse, 1996).
Socio-political sub-context
Government/Political Directives (Local and national) Among all external influential groups, government role are most important (Scupola 2009) and it was
and their agencies acknowledged in various literatures (e.g. Deephouse, 1996; Iacovou et al., 1995; Kuan & Chau, 2001)
Regulatory environment Regulatory environment has been recognized as a critical factor influencing innovation adoption
(Awa et al., 2017; Xu, Zhu, and Gibbs and Kraemer., 2004Zhu et al., 2003).
Technology infrastructure Government plays a major role in providing the required national ICT infrastructure such as reliable
Internet connection with reasonable speed and appropriate technology standards (Humphrey et al.
2003; Hawk 2004).
possible important perceived attributes for a specific situation (individuals adopting a specific technology). For example, portability
of the knowledge required to use the technology, can be considered an influence factor. The knowledge required for the innovation’s
use can be codified and transferred from one context to another, it will be adopted more easily (Greenhalgh et al., 2004; O’Neill et al.,
1998). Support and augmentation is another factor that is linked more directly to information technology innovation. The quality of
the support is usually measured with three indicators: accessibility of support, the time lapse between the request for support and the
delivery, and how support is provided (attitude of support staff) (Aubert and Hamel., 2001). An “augmented product” is a product
where is possible to customize, have training, and a help desk (Greenhalgh et al., 2004).
Concluding, the conceptual framework depicted in Fig. 1 was built upon the factors identified and described in the selected
literature.
From this literature review, we conclude that systematic empirical research on the factors that influence the adoption of different
5
technologies exist in several countries. However, such research does not exist for cobots. Thus, this study aims to contribute to the
identification and characterization of the factors that influence managers in their intentions to adopt of cobots.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Research design
The process of innovation adoption for cobots in manufacturing is a under-researched topic, so an exploratory methodology is
suitable. The main value of this research design is to enable an enriched picture, with precise and substantial descriptions (Gray,
2009) of the factors that influence the intention (or the decision) to adopt cobots. Constructivism was the predominant philosophical
position in this study since it paves the way to gain new perspectives on issues related to this subject (Creswell, 2014).
A criteria-based convenience sample (Patton, 2002) was used to select the companies and participants. The following criteria
were used: 1) companies, in a variety of industries, that have yet adopted or have planned to adopt cobots; 2) knowledgeable
interviewees with large experience about the topic who were able to speak about the topic of interest; 3) managers endowed with
decision-making capability in technological strategy definition and implementation. The qualitative sample comprises thirteen key
informants from six multinationals with production facilities in Portugal and France. The companies are from the automotive,
packaging and security systems sectors. In defining the sample, we aimed to ensure diversity amongst the participants, so that we
could reveal the variety of aspects related to the topic of interest. The sample size is consistent with the sample sizes recommended for
exploratory research (McCracken, 1988). The sampling process ceased at saturation (redundancy of the collected information) (Guest
et al., 2006).
3.2. Data collection and data analysis
The key sample characteristics in Table 2 show that the interviewees represent companies operating in various industries in-
cluding automotive, packaging, and security systems. In order to guarantee the anonymity, an ID was assigned to each interviewee
(first column), composed by the company identification (C1, C2, etc.) and the interviewee number. All the interviewees have been
participating in the decision process of AMTs adoption in their current companies for more than three years, having been for more
than 8 years in leadership positions. Four of them only have had positions at the same (and current) company (C1I1, C3I1, C4I2,
C4I5). The other 6 interviewees have had previous experience in one more company. The youngest interviewee (C5I1) has been
working in the current company for 8 years, and had previous experience of 1,5 years in other company. C6I3 has also been working
in the current company for 8 years, but had a previous professional experience for more than 10 years mainly as a researcher. The
other interviewees have been working in the current company for more than 15 years. For interviewee C5I2 there is no information
regarding the previous professional experience (Table 3).
Thirteen interviews were conducted between February and May 2018, having a duration between 30 and 70 min. The data were
collected through face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Each interview was conducted in the Portuguese language, with one ex-
ception (C3I1) that was conducted in English. The open-ended style of the interviews allowed the respondents to describe their
opinions, experiences and ideas freely, without being limited to standardized categories.
To ensure a complete dataset, the interview guide was based on the conceptual framework of Fig. 1, with questions related to
factors in the three contexts (internal, external and technology). To ensure analytical validity, all the interviews were audio recorded,
with the exception of one, which was held in the writing form. Additionally, the authors conducted field visits to the facilities of the
companies participating in the study. Field observations were recorded as field notes during these visits. Exchanging e-mails with key-
informants to confirm, clarify and improve some aspects of the interview, or the field visits, was used to validate the data collected.
The audio files from the interviews were transcribed. Thereafter, MAXQDA (version 11.0) qualitative analysis software was used
to analyse the interviews. The data followed a thematic and theory-driven analysis (Namey et al., 2008). First, a subset of interview
Table 2
Interviewees description.
ID Job title Industry Duration (Minutes)
C1I1 Industrial Eng., Process Engineer and Internal Logistics Group Leader; I4.0 Project Manager Security Systems 38
C2I1 Divisional Industrial Director – Packaging Division Packaging 60
C3I1 Advanced Manufacturing Department in charge of Powertrain Factory of Future Automotive 56
C4I1 West Operations Manager Automotive components 31
C4I2 Process engineering manager 36
C4I3 Engineering and Innovation Director 41
C4I4 Maintenance supervisor 30
C4I5 Operations Director 43
C5I1 Lean management - Continuous Improvement Automotive 52
C5I2 Assistant Manager - Maintenance & Facility Management Written form
C6I1 Managing Director Automotive components 65
C6I2 Maintenance supervisor 32
C6I3 Process engineer 70
6
Table 3
Companies characteristics.
Company Plant Products Headquarter Employees (FTE) Turnover 2017 (M Classification (FTE Cobots
Location €) > 249) adoption
C1 Portugal Products related to security Germany 700 102 Large company No

systems
C2 Portugal Plastic packages Portugal 950 142 Large company No
C3 France Cars France 170 000 660 000 Large company Yes
C4 Portugal Automotive plastic Portugal 3 206 396 Large company No
components
C5 Portugal Trucks Japan 426 214 Large company Yes
C6 Portugal Automotive components Germany 422 110 Large company No
transcripts was read (a) to develop an initial coding scheme for the pre-defined interview topics and (b) to identify topics in the
transcripts that were not specifically queried by the interview guide (MacQueen et al., 1998). After that, a structural coding was used
to identify unanticipated topics that occur in the interview (Saldaña, 2009; Namey et al., 2008; MacQueen et al., 1998). Additionally,
a coding scheme was developed based on the conceptual framework, and was used as an input to the coding scheme, informing about
important themes to be included in such scheme (Namey et al., 2008). This coding scheme was discussed with the research team to
reach consensus about which topic areas addressed in each section of the transcripts. Once the structural coding process was finished,
the authors conducted further analysis of the data within the unanticipated topics using thematic analysis (Namey et al., 2008),
which included initial coding (a process of examining and categorizing data) followed by axial coding (a process of reassembling data
into groupings based on relationships identified in the data) (Saldaña, 2009; Charmaz, 2006). The resulting codebook with examples
and definition of each theme was taken back to the research team for refinement, iteratively until it was finalized. Finally, selective
analysis (Strauss and Corbin., 1998) was used to identify the most frequently mentioned factors. The most cited codes helped to
identify which themes or ideas were common, being a good indicator of overall thematic importance, and distinguishing them from
rarely-mentioned ideas, unique to specific respondents (Namey et al., 2008). The research team used the code frequency reports to
identify the relative importance of each factor.
3.3. Research quality assurance
Four criteria — credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability — proposed by Guba and Lincoln (1982) to evaluate
interpretive research work were used. Credibility explores the congruence of the findings with reality. In this study we incorporated
several strategies suggested by Shenton (2004) to promote credibility. The interview method has been established in previous re-
search (Patton, 2002). We have developed an early familiarity with the culture of participants organizations through previous field
visits and research/consultancy projects. Triangulation of data sources was applied by involving multiple sources of information and
a wide range of informants (using individual interviews), where individual viewpoints and experiences were verified against others.
Additionally, we have examined previous research results that support the findings. We also took care to explain to the participants
that their identities would not be revealed in our work and their participation was voluntary. All these components added the needed
credibility to this study. Transferability concerns to the extent to which the findings of the study can be applied to other situations
(Patton, 2002). A rich and detailed description of the context (technology, companies and interviewees) and a detailed description of
phenomenon under study was made to improve transferability (Shenton, 2004; Zhang and Wildemuth., 2009). As with most qua-
litative research, the transferability of these results must be understood within the particular characteristics of organizations and the
geographical area of the organizations. Dependability is the likelihood that others researchers would uncover similar findings if the
research was repeated. Credibility and dependability are closely related (Guba and Lincoln, 1982). A transparent coding process, a
rigorous interview protocol and a process of rechecking the transcripts in this study established the dependability of the research
findings (Shenton, 2004). Finally, to achieve confirmability researchers must take steps to demonstrate that findings emerge from the
data and are not dependent on human skill and perception (Shenton, 2004). Detailed documentation of data handling and analysis
provides means for confirmability checking (Zhang and Wildemuth., 2009; Miles and Michael Huberman., 1994; Shenton, 2004).
4. Findings
The data gathered from the interviews provided the necessary information to detail the formerly identified factors that could
influence the adoption decision of cobots in manufacturing described in the literature, and also to establish new ones. In the next
section a brief description of the companies will be made, followed by sections where the factors and their relationships in each
context are identified and described in detail. The relationships between factors in the same context are presented during this analysis
in order to improve the description of the factors. In section 4.4. the relationships between factors in different contexts are also
explained.
7
Table 4
Factors influencing the intention to adopt cobots in manufacturing.
Context Factors Nr. Participants New factor?
INTERNAL Project champion 11
Top Management Support 11
Acceptance 4 Yes
Structure
Size 6
Average age of employees 7
Receptiveness
Ability to support new ideas 12
Value-added perception 8 Yes
Risk taking climate 6
Leadership and vision 6
Involvement 5 Yes
Clear goals and priorities 5
Good managerial relations 2
Readiness
IT Professionals 11
IT Infrastructure 4
Dedicated time & resources 5
Training and motivational actions 9 Yes
Prospecting & Researching 8 Yes
Resources availability 5
Plant physical conditions 1 Yes
EXTERNAL Business Partners

Suppliers 10
Integrators 3
Research Centers 8
Industry Pressures
Competitors 10
Customers 9
Financing agencies 10
Governmental agencies 7
Technological infrastructure 6
Other companies with implementation experience 3 Yes
TECHNOLOGY Cost-benefit analysis

Economic analysis 11
Degree of innovation 1 Yes
Compatibility 10
Complexity 9
Support 9
Portability 9 Yes
Velocity to perform tasks 7 Yes
Reliability 5 Yes
Pilot test/trialability 5
Time till routinization 3 Yes
Flexibility (functions) 3
Workspace needed 1 Yes
4.1. Companies description
Company 1, 2 4 and 6 have a similar situation regarding the implementation of robots and cobots at the time of the interview.
They have several traditional robots in their production process; there was not any cobot in function, neither in pilot testing, in this
facility. Company 3 have several traditional robots as well as few (less than 5) cobots in their production process. Finally, Company 5
have several traditional robots and one cobot in their production process (a second cobot is being tested). In the situations where the
cobots were implemented (Companies 3 and 5) they have been used for assembly tasks.
These six companies have a long history on AMTs adoption and implementation, with more than 15 years of experience. The
youngest company, C1, started its functions in Portugal in 2002. However, this is a plant that belongs to an international group with
more than 30 years of experience is this area. The other companies have also more than 30 years of experience in adoption and
implementation of AMTs.
4.2. Internal context
For the internal context, this study identifies 18 factors, 12 of those were already described in the literature and 6 are new factors,
as shown in Table 4. For example, the existence of a Project champion, as well as the Top management support were considered by
8
almost all interviewees (11 in 13) as important factors that influence positively the intention to adopt cobots. The role of the Project
champion is similar to the project manager (C1I1, C6I2, C6I3), or the project management team (C4I3, C4I4, C4I2 and C6I1). For other
participants, the role of the champion is an influencer (C4I1), or a supporter (C5I1, C4I5). For C2I1, the role of a Project champion does
not exist in the company. Regarding the Top management support, almost all participants (C1I1, C2I1, C3I1, C4I1, C4I2, C4I3, C4I5,
C6I1 C6I2 and C6I3), consider that top management have an important role in supporting the adoption of this kind of technology.
Moreover, C3I1 refers that:
“At the beginning the design department had to convince the top manager and now they are supportive”.
The Acceptance (operator concerns and expectations) is a new factor in the internal context derived from the analysis of the
interviews. Four participants (C5I1, C5I2, C4I2, C4I4) referred this factor. These four managers referred that this factor has a negative
influence in the intention to adopt cobots if they are viewed as a threat to human workers positions and roles.
“..but people from the shop floor can say: - They [the board] are going to implement cobots to replace people. – This will be the first
reaction” (C4I2)
Eventually, this effect can be minimized if proper Involvement and adequate Training is given.
“Perhaps with the increase in the number of equipment it is expectable that a «sense of losing the job» occurs and some campaigns of
awareness should be necessary.”(C5I2)
The Receptiveness factor from the conceptual framework unfolded into new ones, from which Involvement, Value-added perception
and the Ability to support new ideas deserve to be highlighted. In this context, Involvement refers to involving the human operators in
the early stages of the planning process of adoption (stages before the implementation of the technologies). According to the in-
terviewees, if the human operator is involved, this can create a more receptive climate in the company and influence positively the
intention and the decision to adopt cobots.
Value-added perception was referred by eight managers and concerns their expectations regarding the value of the technology for
the company. A positive opinion will be formed if the manager perceives that the technology will improve the value created for the
company.
The Ability to support new ideas, referred by almost all participants (12 in 13), and that is used to characterize de Receptiveness, is
also considered a positive influence to adopt this technology. This factor represents a positive attitude of the workers regarding a new
idea to be implemented in the company.
Finally, in the internal context, the Readiness to adopt is considered by all participants as a factor with influence in the intention to
adopt cobots. Factors in Readiness to adopt were found asking participants what is missing to adopt cobots. Participants identified the
availability of Dedicated time and resources and trained IT professionals as the main ones. Regarding Dedicated time and resources
companies C2, C3, C4 and C6 mentioned the positive influence of a dedicated prospect and research departments that are responsible
for continuously looking in the market for new technologies that can improve the production processes. The participants also con-
sider Training as an important factor for the company to be “ready” for this new technology. Training programs currently in place in
the majority of the companies are mainly related to technical aspects (how to work with the technology). Therefore, the Training
programs and motivational actions in these companies should be rethought in order to consider more aspects related to security
concerns, acceptance, motivation, etc. in order to prepare the human operators to work with cobots.
“Therefore, when introducing something new [a new technology e.g., a cobot], although it can be seen as a continuity of our technological
development, if we are not careful to prepare people to this evolution, this can be an obstacle to the implementation of this technology in the
company”. (C4I5).
4.3. External context
During the data analysis several factors not related to the organization itself were identified. Some of these factors were related to
the external/environmental where organizations have few or no control. We identified nine factors, but only one is new from the
literature (Table 4).
One factor considered relevant by almost all companies (C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6) in the influence to the intention to adopt cobots is
the Business partners, mainly the technology Suppliers and Integrators. Their influence is related with the future Support that will be
given during the implementation and routinization stages, as well as in terms of its Reliability. For almost all the participants,
technology Suppliers and Integrators have also the role of clarifying some of the initial doubts about cobots, mainly through exhibitions
or company visits. Additionally, Research centers (independent or university affiliated) also have an important role in influencing/
motivating companies to adopt cobots.
“They [business partners] have a great power to influence”. (C6I2)
“They [business partners] have a great power to motivate us also” (C4I2)
“I see our partners, suppliers or other, in a similar relationship as the one with our customers. When I bring to my customer an idea that
enable him to take advantage [from its competitors], I have more probability of success. Thus, if I have a partner that brings me a [new]
product or a [new]service and also have the capacity to demonstrate the advantages that I can have using it, this will help me in my
decision-making process.” (C4I5)
9
According to the interviewees, Research centers and public Financing agencies influence the intention (or decision) to adopt cobots.
For the Portuguese reality, the role of these two entities is sometimes complementary, since some financing funds, resulting from
public policies, are used by companies in research and innovation projects in partnership with the Research centers.
“If we didn’t have access to the innovation program, probably this technology would not be planned, at least for now.” (C1I1)
“These are new technologies that, most of the times, if the research centers don’t have the capacity to develop or demonstrate them, and to
make them attractive… Some companies can have this initiative, … but it’s very important that someone have this role to convince us
[company managers] about the importance of investing [on these new technologies]” (C4I5)
Other Companies with a positive experience in the implementation of cobots, in the same or different industrial sectors, were also
pointed by three participants (C1I1, C4I1 and C6I3) as an important factor with influence in the intention to adopt.
“[…] this is somehow related to benchmarking or shared experiences with other organizations that have had the contact with the tech-
nology, this is a persuasion factor that contributes to invest in the technology.” (C4I1)
Finally, we found the existence of factors with influence on the intention to adopt resulting from industry (Industry pressures). One
of these pressures come from Competitors. Several participants (C2I1, C3I1, C4I1, C4I2, C4I3, C4,I4, C4I5, C5I1, C6I1, C6I3) were
assertive referring that Competitors have a great influence on the intention to adopt cobots. If the company knows that competitors
have already implemented cobots with success, having good results, this make an extra pressure in the process to decide to implement
the cobots. According to nine participants, pressures to adopt new technologies, such as cobots, also come also from Customers. For
C5I1, for example, the customer is the company headquarters, having naturally a strong influence in the adoption decision. According
to several participants the fact that they belong to the automotive industry (three companies) press the companies to adopt new
technologies that can improve their production process. For example, for C6I1, their customers suggest that they implement a specific
technology in order to solve problems in the production process.
“The customers themselves, in a given situation, facing a problem or a difficulty, suggest us or almost force us to implement [these new
technologies].” (C6I1)
4.4. Technology context
For the technology context, we identified twelve factors, seven of which were already described in the literature and five are new
factors (see Table 4).
Cost-benefit analysis (or the relative advantage) was one of the frequently mentioned factors and, consequently, a most important
one for companies in the intention to adopt cobots. Almost all participants (12 in 13) consider very important to make this economic
analysis in order to define the relative advantage (in terms of costs and benefits) of collaborative in comparison to conventional
robots, or even stay in the same situation.
However, C4I3 and C6I1 note that are several aspects in the cost-benefit analysis that are very difficult to measure in monetary
terms, mainly related with ergonomic improvements.
“Many times, when we integrate new technologies in the company, the difficulty is to build a clear and convincing business case. Thus, the
payback is sometimes difficult to be accepted by the board.” (C4I3)
The Degree of innovation of the technology was a new and interesting factor mentioned in this study. According to C4I3 the Degree
of innovation of the technology (how long time the technology is known for the market and, in particular, for the company/group)
must be considered in the cost-benefit analysis, and thus have influence on the intention to adopt the technology
The majority of the participants in this study (C1I1, C4I5, C5I1, C5I2, C6I2 and C6I3) don’t see this technology as a Complex one,
only two participants (C3I1 and C4I4) consider so. Moreover, for C3I1, this robot is easier to work than the traditional ones.
The Portability of the technology i.e., to the possibility to use the technology for example in different parts of the assembly line, as
well as in different assembly lines, was frequently mentioned as an important factor with a positive influence on the intention to
adopt cobots.
“I think that is a factor [portability] that as an influence. For example, when we need to change the place of our current equipment’s it is
always a problem. There are a lot of cables, infrastructures, and so on. If it is a transportable is preferable.” (C2I1)
Velocity in task execution is another characteristic of this technology considered relevant and with influence on the intention to
adopt. According to the majority of the participants (C2I1, C3I1, C4I1, C4I2, C5I1, C6I1, C6I2 and C6I3), this factor is probably the
most important one impeding the adoption of this technology by the manufacturing organizations.
The small workspace need to install a cobot, in comparison with the caged ones, have a positive influence in the adoption intent.
Finally, the time till routinization was a factor considered by three participants as an important factor to consider in the adoption of this
technology.
4.5. Relationships between factors
The relationships between factors in the same context have been explained in the previous sections. This section presents another
contribution of this study which is the identification of relationships between factors in different contexts. Fig. 2 synthesises
10
Fig. 2. Factors that influence managers in their intention (or decision) to adopt cobots in the manufacturing.
graphically all the factors and their relationships.

The factor Business partner, where Business partners can be technology Suppliers, Integrators and Research centers — in the external
context, is related to factors in the technology context: Support (or services extension) and Reliability, since the technology Support and
Reliability is provided by these Business partners. Technology Suppliers and Integrators are often at the origin of the first contact
between companies and the technology. Additionally, some interviewees mention that the first time that they heard about cobots was
via these Suppliers. Interviewees also referred regular contacts between companies and technology Suppliers as a way to guarantee a
future Support and Reliability regarding the implementation of this technology.
The Acceptance factor, in the internal context, is improved by a Training program and Motivational actions and by the early
Involvement of the human workers in the adoption process. Nevertheless, this Acceptance must be also considered in the Cost-benefit
analysis (in the technology context). According to the participants of this study, Other companies that adopted cobots with success,
influence positively the intention to adopt. These companies with implementation experience are used as benchmark companies in
order to improve the implementation of this technology in the future.
5. Discussion
Although a number of studies exist in the literature regarding the factors that influence the adoption process of several tech-
nologies, to our best knowledge there is no literature about the factors that influence the intention (or the decision) to adopt cobots.
We focus this discussion on the new factors emerging from this study, but also address more briefly, those already studied in the
literature regarding other technologies.
11
Data analysis revealed that a large portion of factors that influence the intention to adopt cobots identified by the participants had
already been identified in the literature (27 out of 39 factors had been referred in the literature), related to the adoption of other
technologies. This was expected as cobots exhibit common characteristics with other technologies. In spite of that, it was possible to
confirm the distribution of these factors into the three contexts initially defined in the conceptual framework.
Previous research on technology adoption revealed company Size as a factor in the internal context that influence the adoption of
RFID (Wang et al., 2010) and mobile supply chain management systems (Chan and Chong, 2013). The results of our study show that
this factor was not considered of great influence. The Receptiveness of an organization toward innovations play an important role in
the decision process (Marcati et al., 2008) and the results show that almost all participants (12 in 13) in this study agree with this.
Here, Receptiveness is described in terms of known and new factors: Ability to support new ideas, Value-added perception, and early
Involvement of human workers in adoption process.
Good managerial relations (internal context) and the Involvement of human workers in the planning of the adoption process are
related, according to the results of this study. An organization that is open to listen and understand the workers usually involve them
in most of the phases of the adoption process and, consequently, is more open to adopt successfully new technologies. This is in line
with the results of Bauer et al. (2016) and Lettl (2007). Additionally, we found that a history of innovativeness, associated to a Risk
taking climate, promotes the likelihood for further positive adoption decisions when it comes to new technology-based innovations,
that is in line with Damanpour (1991) and Marcati et al. (2008) studies.
The organizational Readiness to adopt, that in this study includes the existence of capable IT professionals and IT infrastructure
factors, also appear as factors influencing the adoption of technologies such as RFID (Wang et al., 2010) and industry 4.0-technologies
(Nilsen and Nyberg, 2016). In this study, Readiness was characterized by three new factors: i) the existence of prospect and research
departments, responsible for looking for new technologies and methods, capable of improving the production systems; ii) the ex-
istence of Training programs involving technology management aspects, and Motivation actions able to deal with the human worker
concerns and expectations; and iii) Plant physical conditions considering that this factor can influence negatively the intention to adopt
cobots if substantial modifications (and in consequence investments) in the shop-floor need to be made to install cobots. Authors
included the first two factors into Dedicated time and resources.
Operator Acceptance appears in the internal context as a new factor. Effective human resources management capable of promoting
efficient Training programs and more Involving (the operator) actions are critical to deal with the operators concerns and expectations
(operators usually have the idea that sooner or later they will be substituted by a robot) and also to deal with adaptability of operator
to this new reality (humans working together with robots). These results are in line with Bauer et al. (2016) and Schmidtler et al.
(2015) studies.
Finally, a part of the results of this research in the internal context were previously presented by Gallivan (2001) in his hybrid
framework, which draws insights from both the literature on individual innovation adoption as well as from process research on
organizational implementation. In this study some factors in the managerial intervention (actions taken, and resources made
available by managers to promote secondary adoption), such as training, support, are also included in our findings. Similarly, the
facilitating conditions (category that captures other factors that can make implementation more- or less-likely to occur, such us
innovation and organization attributes) of Gallivan hybrid framework, also emerge in the findings of this study.
Several factors emanated from data concerning the external context. Some of them are referred in the literature as important
factors with influence in the adoption process. For example Competitive pressure was identified by Zhu et al. (2003) and Kuan and
Chau. (2001) as an important factor in the information technologies adoption. Manufacturing organizations are pressed to improve
their production processes in order to improve their efficiency. These results show that a pressure to adopt cobots arise not only from
Competitors but also from Business partners, in particular Customers. This is expressed in the factor Industry pressures that is in line with
the results of Teo et al. (2003) research where pressures from Customers and Competitors were examined and strong empirical support
was found regarding their influence in the intention to adopt inter-organizational systems (financial electronic data interchange).
Pressures from Business partners are referred by some studies as a facilitator for innovation adoption (Iacovou et al., 1995; Teo
et al., 2003). These results revealed that the role of Business partners is accomplished not only by technology Suppliers and Integrators,
but also by Research centers. These results showed that Research centers also have an important role as a bridge between public
Financing agencies and the companies. In Portugal partnerships between companies and Research centers are made to have access to
research funding that can be used to the development of Pilot testing of new manufacturing technologies, such as cobots. The influence
of the public Financing agencies is also referred by Deephouse (1996); Iacovou et al. (1995) and Kuan and Chau. (2001) as an
important influence to adoption.
The major contribution of this study is the identification of new factors influencing the adoption of cobots in addition to the ones
already identified in literature regarding other technologies adoption. The identification of factors influencing the adoption of cobots
in the three contexts illustrate the alignment of these results with the TOE theory. Also, the existence of external factors related to
competitive pressure and the support of governmental institutions as well as of the research centres confirms the influence of the
adoption decision of normative, mimetic and coercive pressures considered in INT theory. Finally, the well-established factors
considered by the DoI theory (Rogers, 2003): relative advantage, external observability, trialability, compatibility and complexity,
were also reported in this study, for example, Observability involves the reporting of implementation experiences of Other companies.
Particularly in the technology context, other important factors were emphasized here: Velocity to perform the tasks (in comparison to
other solutions); Portability along with the Workspace needed (that is less than the traditional caged robots); and Flexibility (possibility
to execute different tasks in different parts of the assembly line). However, almost all the participants referred that the cost-benefit
analysis plays the critical role in the intention to adopt (or decision to adopt). This agrees with extant research about other tech-
nologies (Chan and Chong, 2013; Wang et al., 2010; Sharma et al., 2007). Another important finding of this study was the technology
12
Degree of novelty as a factor that influences the intention to adopt.
6. Conclusion
This paper identifies 39 factors influencing the intention to adopt cobots in manufacturing, 12 of which are new in the literature.
In fact, this study enriches the current literature by offering a comprehensive set of factors in different contexts and a better un-
derstanding of cobots in manufacturing, complementing the findings of previous research addressing different technologies and also
providing directions for future research.
In order to identify, characterize and better understand the factors in three contexts - internal, external and technology - this study
used an exploratory qualitative research involving six organizations and thirteen managers to explore the factors that influence the
intention/decision of companies to adopt cobots in the manufacturing. As a result of the relationships among the influential factors in
the different contexts, a multi-theoretical perspective was adopted, aimed to gain a better understanding of the influence of those
factors. TOE framework along with two other adoption theories, DoI and INT, were fundamental to develop a more comprehensive
understanding of how factors in these three contexts play an important role with impact in adoption intention decision.
As cobots are one of the enabling technologies of industry 4.0, the findings of this study offer worthwhile insights into the current
adoption of industry 4.0 technologies in the Portuguese and French manufacturing industry. It is useful to better understand the
adoption process (up to the decision stage) and the factors that can influence this process. This understanding can be particularly
useful for companies interested in adopt this technology, as well as for their business partners.
By conducting this study in six different companies, in two different countries, and in different industrial sectors (security systems,
package and automotive) it was possible to validate the results and to understand its value for companies. The results observed
concerning the three contexts are shown to be aligned with the findings in the literature. The participant companies were selected
based on their intention/decision to adopt cobots and were willing to revise their adoption process in order to improve it and have
better implementations and routinization of this technology. Furthermore, the fact that companies were available to reflect about
their adoption process, mainly up to the decision stage, can contribute for the improvement of their managerial practices.
Despite the contribution of this study, some limitations should be kept in mind. First, this study only considers companies in few
sectors. Other companies in others industrial sectors may complete and enlarge the results. This research concerns to the identifi-
cation of factors that influence managers in their intention/decision to adopt cobots in manufacturing organizations, thus the
identification of factors with influence on other stages of the adoption process was not in the scope of this study. Finally, as this study
is based on a qualitative research involving managers in six companies, the findings should be interpreted carefully within the
relevant contexts.
Acknowledgements
This work was financed by the ERDF - European Regional Development Fund through the Operational Programme for
Competitiveness and Internationalisation - COMPETE 2020 Programme, by National Funds through the Portuguese funding agency,
FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia within project POCI-01-0145-FEDER- 016418.
References
Ajzen, Icek., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Asplund, J., Brile, J., Vallhagen, J., Mattsson, S., 2017. Application of Human-industrial Robot Collaboration - Prerequisites and Benefits of HIRC.” Department of
Product and Production Development. Chalmers University of Technology., Gothenburg, Sweden.
Aubert, Benoit A., Hamel, Geneviève, 2001. Adoption of smart cards in the medical sector: the canadian experience. Soc. Sci. Med. 53 (7), 879–894.
Awa, Hart O., Uko, John P., Ukoha, Ojiabo, 2017. An empirical study of some critical adoption factors of ERP software. Int. J. Hum. Interact. 33 (8), 609–622.
Bauer, W., Bender, M., Braun, M., Rally, P., Scholtz, O., 2016. Lightweight Robots in Manual Assembly Best to Start Simply. Frauenhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft
und Organisation IAO., Stuttgart.
Bordeleau, Fanny-Ève, Mosconi, Elaine, Santa-Eulalia, Luis Antonio, 2018. Business intelligence in industry 4.0: State of the art and research opportunities. In
Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2018.495.
Bosch, Juan J., Klett, Fanny, 2010. Safe and flexible human-robot cooperation in industrial applications. In: 2010 International Conference on Computer Information
Systems and Industrial Management Applications. CISIM 2010. pp. 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1109/CISIM.2010.5643682.
Brettel, Malte, Friederichsen, Niklas, Keller, Michael, Rosenberg, Marius, 2014. How virtualization, decentralization and network building change the manufacturing
landscape: an industry 4.0 perspective. International Journal of Mechanical, Industrial Science and Engineering 8 (1), 37–44.
Buchner, Roland, Wurhofer, Daniela, Weiss, Astrid, Tscheligi, Manfred, 2013. Robots in time: how user experience in human-robot interaction changes over time. In
International Conference on Social Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_14. 8239.
Carolis, Anna De, Tavola, Giacomo, Taisch, Marco, 2016. Cyber-physical systems in manufacturing: future trends and research priorities. In 21st Summer School
Francesco Turco 2016. edited by AIDI - Italian Association of Industrial Operations Professors, Italy. http://hdl.handle.net/11311/1016010.
Chan, Felix T.S., Chong, Alain Yee-Loong, 2013. Determinants of Mobile Supply Chain Management System Diffusion: A Structural Equation Analysis of Manufacturing
Firms. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (4), 1196–1213.
Charalambous, G., 2016. The development of a scale to evaluate trust in industrial human-robot collaboration. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8 (2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12369-015-0333-8.
Charmaz, Kathy., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: a Practical Guide Through Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, London.
Colgate, J., Edward, J., Peshkin, Michael A., Wannasuphoprasit, Witaya, 1996. Cobots: robots for collaboration with human operators. In: In Proceedings of the
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exhibition. Atlanta, USA. pp. 433–439 58.
Creswell, John W., 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th editio. Sage publications.
Dacin, M.T., Goodstein, Jerry, Scott, W.R., 2002. Institutional theory and institutional change: introduction to the special research forum. Acad. Manag. J. 45 (1),
45–56.
Damanpour, F., 1991. Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. Acad. Manag. J. 34 (3), 555–590.
13
Davis, F.D., 1985. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Management. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology https://doi.org/oclc/56932490.
Davis, Fred D., 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems
13 (3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
Deephouse, David L., 1996. Does Isomorphism Legitimate? Acad. Manag. J. 39 (4), 1024–1039.
Degryse, Christophe, 2016. Digitalisation of the Economy and Its Impact on Labour Markets. SSRNhttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2730550.
DiMaggio, P., Powell, W., 1983. The Iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Socioiogicai Review 48
(2), 147–160.
Djuric, Ana M., Urbanic, R.J., Rickli, J.L., 2016. A framework for collaborative robot (CoBot) integration in advanced manufacturing systems. Sae Int. J. Mater. Manuf.
9 (2), 457–464. https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0337.
Döppner, Daniel A., Derckx, Patrick, Schoder, Detlef, 2019. Symbiotic co-evolution in collaborative human-machine decision making: exploration of a multi-year
design science research project in the air cargo industry. In: In 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. HICSS. pp. 264–274.
Freddi, D., 2018. Digitalisation and employment in manufacturing. AI Soc. 33 (3), 393–403.
Fryman, Jeff, Matthias, Bjoern, 2012. Safety of industrial robots: from conventional to collaborative applications. In: Robotics; Proceedings of ROBOTIK 2012. 7th
German Conference On. pp. 1–5. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6309480.
Gallivan, Michael J., 2001. Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of a New Framework. The
DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems 32 (3), 51–85.
Gibbs, Jennifer L., Kraemer, Kenneth L., 2004. A cross‐country investigation of the determinants of scope of E‐commerce use: an institutional approach. Electron.
Mark. 14 (2), 1019–6781.
Gray, David E., 2009. Doing Research in the Real World, second edi. Sage Publications.
Greenhalgh, Trisha, Robert, Glenn, Macfarlane, Fraser, Bate, Paul, Kyriakidou, Olivia, 2004. Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and
Recommendations. Milbank Q. 82 (4), 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.
Guba, Egon G., Lincoln, Yvonna S., 1982. Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication & Technology. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF02765185.
Guest, Greg, Bunce, Arwen, Johnson, Laura, 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods 18 (1), 59–82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903.
Hägele, Martin, Schaaf, Walter, Helms, Evert, 2002. Robot assistants at manual workplaces - effective co-operation and safety aspects. Proceedings of the 33rd
International Symposium on Robotics (ISR) 6.
Hameed, Mumtaz Abdul, Counsell, Steve, Swift, Stephen, 2012. A conceptual model for the process of IT innovation adoption in organizations. J. Eng. Technol. Manag.
29 (3), 358–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.03.007.
Hason, Stanley F., 1994. Feasibility and Implementation of Automation and Robotics in Canadian Building Construction Operations. Concordia University, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.
Huber, Markus, Lenz, Claus, Rickert, Markus, Knoll, Alois, Brandt, Thomas, Glasauer, Stefan, 2008. Human preferences in industrial human-robot interactions.
International Workshop on Cognition for Technical Systems.
Iacovou, Charalambos L., Benbasat, Izak, Dexter, Albert S., 1995. Electronic data inter-change and small organization : adoption and impact of technology. Mis Q. 19
(4), 465–485.
Kadir, Bzhwen A., Broberg, Ole, Souza da Conceição, C., 2018. Designing human-robot collaborations in industry 4.0: explorative case studies. International Design
Conference. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0319.
Kildal, Johan, Tellaeche, Alberto, Fernández, Izaskun, Maurtua, I.ñaki, 2018. Potential users’ key concerns and expectations for the adoption of cobots. Conference on
Manufacturing Systems. Elsevier.
Krüger, J., Lien, T.K., Verl, A., 2009. Cooperation of human and machines in assembly lines. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 58 (2), 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cirp.2009.09.009.
Kuan, Kevin K.Y., Chau, Patrick Y.K., 2001. A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology– organization–Environment framework.
Inf. Manag. 38 (8), 507–521.
Lenz, Claus, Knoll, Alois, 2014. Mechanisms and capabilities for human robot collaboration. IEEE RO-MAN 2014 - 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and
Human Interactive Communication: Human-Robot Co-Existence: Adaptive Interfaces and Systems for Daily Life, Therapy, Assistance and Socially Engaging
Interactions 666–671. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926329.
Lettl, Christopher., 2007. User involvement competence for radical innovation. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 24 (1–2), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2007.
01.004.
MacQueen, Kathleen M., McLellan, Eleanor, Kay, Kelly, Milstein, Bobby, 1998. Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology
Methods 10 (2), 31–36.
Marcati, Alberto, Guido, Gianluigi, Peluso, Alessandro M., 2008. The role of SME entrepreneurs’ innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations. Res.
Policy 37 (9), 1579–1590.
McCracken, Grant., 1988. The Long Interview. SAGE., Newbury Park, CA.
Miles, Matthew B., Michael Huberman, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook, second edi. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Moffat, David C., Gray, Edwin, 2015. The need for creative skills in design engineering, and how education can develop them. In: International Conference on
Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA). IEEE.
Namey, Emily, Guest, Greg, Thairu, Lucy, Johnson, Laura, 2008. Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In: Guest, Greg, MacQueen, Kate (Eds.),
Handbook for Team-Based Qualitative Research. AltaMira Press, Lanham MD, pp. 137–162.
Nilsen, S., Nyberg, E., 2016. The adoption of industry 4.0-Technologies in manufacturing: a multiple case study. KTH Industrial Engineering and Management.
O’Neill, Hugh M., Pouder, Richard W., Buchholtz, Ann K., 1998. Patterns in the Diffusion of Strategies across Organizations: Insights from the Innovation Diffusion
Literature. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (1), 98–114.
Oliver, C., 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource-based views. Strateg. Manage. J. 18 (9), 697–713.
Parasuraman, Raja, Riley, Victor, 1997. Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse. Hum. Factors 39 (2), 230–253.
Parmentola, Adele, Simoni, Michele, Tutore, Ilaria, 2015. Which policies can encourage the diffusion of New technologies? A literature review. European Conference
on Innovation and Entrepreneurship 529–538.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, third. Sage Publications.
Rajan, Christy Angeline, Baral, Rupashree, 2015. Adoption of ERP system: an empirical study of factors influencing the usage of ERP and its impact on end user. Iimb
Manag. Rev. 27 (2), 105–117.
Rogers, Everett M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th editio. Free Press, New York.
Saldaña, J., 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage, London.
Schmidtler, Jonas, Verena Knott, Christin H.ölzel, Bengler, Klaus, 2015. Human centered assistance applications for the working environment of the future. Occup.
Ergon. 12 (3), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.3233/OER-150226.
Scott, W.R., 2001. Institutions and Organizations, second edi. SAGE.
Sharma, Aditya, Citurs, Alex, Konsynski, Benn, 2007. Strategic and institutional perspectives in the adoption and early integration of radio frequency identification
(RFID). In: Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa, HI, USA: IEEE.
Shenton, Andrew K., 2004. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ. Inf. 22 (2), 63–75.
Simões, A.C., Barros, A., Soares, A., 2018. Conceptual framework for the identification of influential contexts of the adoption decision. In: Proceedings - IEEE 16th
International Conference on Industrial Informatics, INDIN 2018. Porto. Portugal. pp. 1059–1064. https://doi.org/10.1109/INDIN.2018.8471963.
14
Smith, Diane, Dieterly, Duncan L., 1980. Automation literature: a brief review and analysis. NASA Technical Memorandum 81245. NASA, NASA.
Sohal, A.S., Sarros, J., Schroder, R., O’neill, P., 2006. Adoption framework for advanced manufacturing technologies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44 (24), 5225–5246.
Strauss, Anselm L., Corbin, Juliet M., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, second edi. Sage Publications,
London.
Sun, Shiwei, Cegielski, Casey G., Jia, Lin, Hall, Dianne J., 2018. Understanding the factors affecting the organizational adoption of big data. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 58 (3),
193–203.
Teo, H.H., Wei, K.K., Benbasat, I., 2003. Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: an institutional perspective. Mis Q. 27 (1), 19–49.
Thoben, Klaus Dieter, Wiesner, Stefan Alexander, Wuest, Thorsten, 2017. Industrie 4.0’ and smart Manufacturing-a review of research issues and application examples.
Int. J. Autom. Technol. 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2017.p0004. 2017.
Tornatzky, L., Fleischer, M., 1990. The Process of Technology Innovation. Lexington Books, Lexington, M.A.
Venkatesh, Viswanath, Morris, Michael G., Davis, Gordon B., Davis, Fred D., 2003. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Mis Q. 27 (3),
425–478.
Wang, Yu-Min, Wang, Yi-Shun, Yang, Yong-Fu, 2010. Understanding the determinants of RFID adoption in the manufacturing industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
77 (5), 803–815.
Wu, Long, Chiu, Mai-Lun, 2015. Organizational applications of IT innovation and firm’s competitive performance: a resource-based view and the innovation diffusion
approach. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 35, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2014.09.002.
Zahariadis, Theodore, Papadakis, Andreas, Alvarez, Federico, Gonzalez, Jose, Lopez, Fernando, Facca, Federico, Al-Hazmi, Yahya, 2014. FIWARE lab: managing
resources and services in a Cloud Federation supporting future internet applications. In: In Proceedings - 2014 IEEE/ACM 7th International Conference on Utility
and Cloud Computing. UCC 2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/UCC.2014.129.
Zhang, Yan, Wildemuth, Barbara M., 2009. Qualitative analysis of content. In: Wildemuth, Barbara M. (Ed.), Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in
Information and Library Science. Libraries Unlimited, Westport CT, pp. 221–231.
Zhu, Kevin, Kraemer, Kenneth, Sean, Xu., 2003. Electronic business adoption by european firms: a crosscountry assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors. Eur. J. Inf.
Syst. 12 (4), 251–268.
15

Simões - 2020 Cobots

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simões - 2020 Cobots

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 57 (2020) 101574

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Engineering and

Factors inﬂuencing the intention of managers to adopt

2.1. Collaborative robots (cobots)

2.2. Adoption models

2.2.1. Diﬀusion of innovation theory (DoI)

2.2.2. Technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework

2.2.3. Institutional theory (INT)

2.3. Combining DoI, TOE and INT

2.3.1. Internal context

• Structural factors (size, age, decentralization and slack of resources)

2.3.2. External context

2.3.3. Technology context

Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework (based on Simões et al., 2018).

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Research design

3.2. Data collection and data analysis

C1 Portugal Products related to security Germany 700 102 Large company No

3.3. Research quality assurance

EXTERNAL Business Partners

TECHNOLOGY Cost-beneﬁt analysis

4.1. Companies description

4.2. Internal context

4.3. External context

4.4. Technology context

4.5. Relationships between factors

graphically all the factors and their relationships.

Degree of novelty as a factor that inﬂuences the intention to adopt.

You might also like