Perceived benefits: These benefits are in the form of increased speed and ease.

increased flexibility,
accuracy and efficiency productivity (Ariyani et al. 2020)

The key benefits of Industry 4.0 can be seen as better management and monitoring of production
processes, greater manufacturing agility, reduced waiting period to enter the market with a product in
production, increased efficiency, personalized goods and greater consumer trust

Relative advantage occurs if the adoption of Industry 4.0 in TEIs can reduce their operating costs and
give an advantage over that of their competitors in terms of a good and robust reputation, strong
industry connections and the enhancement of the efficiency of internal operations.

Relative advantage is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it
supersedes” (Rogers, 1995). Relative advantage is also a motivating factor for Industry 4.0 adoption as
companies only implement new technologies if benefits exceed potential negative effects. In this
context, Industry 4.0 is, among others, associated with increased resource efficiency, flexibility, and
customization (Kagermann et al., 2013).

The degree of additional benefit for the organization from adopting the innovation over the current
system is referred to as relative advantage.

The phrase ‘relative advantage’ refers to the advantage one gets by using new technology as opposed
to using what came before.

The phrase ‘relative advantage’ refers to the advantage one gets by using new technology as opposed to
using what came before [87]. What innovation is sought depends on what the user wants to improve
[59]. Innovations whose advantages are very clear, such as strategic effectiveness (e.g., increasing sales)
and operational effectiveness (e.g., reducing costs) are more likely to be adopted [88]. Industry 4.0
technologies have so far shown that they can considerably improve processes and practices, so they
have a good chance of being adopted [89]. Relative advantage has been found to play an important role
in technology diffusion so this concept must be studied ever more in the context of Industry 4.0 [90–92].

Essentially, relative advantage denotes a particular degree to which innovation is considered to be

improvised compared with the former

Relative advantage of industry 4.0 can be described as the possible advantage that firm can gain from
industry 4.0 adoption and implementation.

Compatibility of existing infrastructure with Industry 4.0 is to be considered when making an adoption
decision (Premkumar and Ramamurthy, 1995; Premkumar and Roberts, 1999). TEIs need to consider
how to integrate existing IT systems with Industry 4.0, and how the compatibility of the TEI’s systems
and applications with Industry 4.0 is likely to make the adoption of Industry 4.0 feasible.

Compatibility is defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the
existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters” (Rogers, 1995, p. 224).

Compatibility is the degree to which technological innovation can be easily integrated with the existing
infrastructure and processes [24]. If the innovation is compatible with current practices and
technological infrastructure, adoption is more likely, according to Cooper and Zmud [27].
How much a new technology is compatible with existing company structures, infrastructure, procedures
and values influences its likeliness of being adopted

IDT compatibility can be defined as the extent to which IDT are consistent with the existing technology
infrastructure, culture, values, and preferred work practices of SMEs

whereas compatibility is a degree to which an innovation is deemed to be reconcilable with existing

values, experience of past years and adoptive needs

Technology compatibility refers to the extent in which technological innovation can be easily integrated
with existing infrastructure and processes (Prause, 2019). Companies are more inclined towards
adopting new technologies if they fit existing systems and processes (Arnold et al., 2018).

Cost Tornatzky and Klein [14] state that technologies that are perceived to be low in cost are more likely
to be adopted

with financing the direct and indirect costs of Industry 4.0 technology acquisition (Kumar et al., 2020),
despite some arguing that Industry 4.0 technologies have recently become more affordable and
accessible to SMEs (Rauch et al., 2019). Direct costs include expenses that firms need to initially incur at
the beginning of the technology acquisition project, such as costs of hardware, software and underlying
systems (Benitez et al., 2020). Indirect costs are the general technology upkeeping expenses that firms
must repeatedly endure to keep the technology operating, including consultation, ongoing training and
maintenance costs (Ali et al., 2021; Kumaret al., 2020)

Top management support it refers to managerial belief and continuous support for initiative and
involvement in SM system in an organization.

The acceptance of technological adoption in an organisation will be much easier when it receives full support and
devotion provided by top management (Alshamaila & Papagiannidis, 2013; Borgman, Bahli, Heier & Schewski.,
2013; Low, Chen & Wu., 2011; Ifinedo, 2011; Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990).
Since top management acts as the decision maker, their decision affects the technology adoption process. Arnold,
Veile & Voigt (2018) asserted that support and assistance from top management is a crucial aspect if an organisation
aims to implement Industry 4.0 effectively, as its execution involves wide-scale investments. Along with that, Rajnai
& Kocsis (2018) pointed out that although some business managers are perceptive and mindful of the presence of
Industry 4.0, yet they are apprehensive as their companies are unequivocally unprepared for the full implementation
of it.

Internal resources

The Resource-Based View (RBV) contends that a company’s valuable, rare and inimitable resources are a
source of competitive advantage (Barney,1991; Melville et al., al.,2004). Internal resources include
financial, technological, and overall infrastructure, all of which assist TEIs to adopt and use Industry 4.0
more effectively

Organisation readiness means the availability of financial, human, and technical resources of an
organisation before implementing new technology (Yusof & Arifin, 2016)
Since this study is examining adoption at the organizational level, individual characteristics were not
considered in this study

Moreover, it is essential to keep in mind Prioritization of factors of Industry 4.0 that the implementation
of Industry 4.0 in the manufacturing industries is smoother in developed nations than in emerging
nations (Fettermann et al., 2018). Luthra et al. (2020) suggest that the prioritization of important factors
using AHP/ANP techniques is needed for future research concerning developing nations. Despite the
many opportunities offered by the implementation of Industry 4.0 technology, there is a longer journey
ahead (Frank et al., 2019; Dalenogare et al., 2018). Rajet al. (2020) conducted a study concerning
barriers in Industry 4.0 and recommended a gap in the area of research for the enabling factors
concerning developing nations. As far as India’s concerns point out, as a developing nation, this justifies
the necessity to identify and analyze important factors for incorporating the Industry 4.0 strategy into
the manufacturing industry, as well as moving on to further fulfilling the needs of Industry 4.0
implementation. To deduce the same, in the primary phase here, the critical factors must be recognized
towards the status of Industry 4.0 implementation, and in the second phase, identified important factors
are analyzed utilizing a ranking of the factors to determine the status of Industry 4.0 applications in
Indian manufacturing industries

AHP is a feasible decision-making practice that appropriately addresses issues in which the decision
criteria can be hierarchical structured into criteria or their factors (Semih and Seyhan, 2011

The proposed methodology incorporates two phases. The primary phase includes the determination of
important factors for the status of Industry 4.0 implementation in Indian manufacturing industries via
the study of literature and conversations with experts who have less than eight years of experience in
the relevant fields. The subsequent phase includes an allotment of weights and prioritizes important
factors utilizing the AHP and ANP strategies.

In the primary phase, the identification of critical factors in the status of Industry 4.0 implementation in
the manufacturing industry began with an exhaustive literature review and brainstorming session by a
personal interview, as well as an online survey among five experts from well-known Indian
manufacturing industries at the managerial level, and five experts from academia. This investigation
identified 16 critical factors under the headings of the four evaluation criteria like cost, organizational,
environmental, innovation. A set of comparative questions were framed for the AHP and ANP analyses.

Subsequently, all the experts from Indian manufacturing industries and academicians were asked to fill
out a questionnaire table of important factors concerning the status of Industry 4.0 implementation, and
the description of 16 important factors accompanied this in the process of filling out a questionnaire
which is pairwise in nature. The targeted experts were highly qualified, and experienced practitioners
focused on the fields of information technology, manufacturing industries and their related sectors.
Additionally, AHP and ANP techniques were utilized for prioritizing important factors (or readiness
factors) towards the implementation status of an Industry 4.0 concept

TOE framework was introduced by Tornatzky et al. (1990). TOE generally represents how the firm
context influences the process of implementation and adoption (Borgman et al., 2013). This framework
is an organizational-level theory details in three-type of organizational decision i.e. technological,
organizational and environmental context.
All these contexts are postulated for technological innovation and especially being used for
implementation and adoption issues (Bagale, 2014). The technological context refers to those
technologies that are already in the firm and new technologies that are not currently used in the firm.
Both these categories are important as existing technologies act as pillars for new technologies to adapt
and evolve in the firm. The organizational context explores the characteristics, resources and of the firm
(Tan, 2010). This context directly or indirectly influences the aligning of individual and team efforts in the
fulfilment of the organization’s goal. In the TOE framework, environmental context is the physical space
or the arena in which a firm conducts its business. It includes the firm’s structure, competitors, services
providers and deals with the regulatory environment (Awa et al., 2016).

The collection and sorting of factors are done based on relevant literature and expert opinions.

As an organizational-level theory, TOE framework describes how the firm context influences the
adoption and implementation of innovation from three different dimensions (Tornatzky and Fleischer,
1990). Technological dimension focuses on the technological characteristics that influence firm
adoption, organizational dimension contributes the adoption to the organizational attributes and
environmental dimension reflects the surrounding factors (Henderson et al., 2012)

The purpose of this research is to propose a fit approach for estimating Industry 4.0 technology’s
potential to improve the performance in SMEs. Therefore, the paper has two contributions: It develops
a theoretical basis linking Industry 4.0 technology application to the business performance in SMEs, and
it estimates the influence of Industry 4.0 technology application on diverse aspects of the business
performance. In light of hypercompetitive, commerce performance enhancement, SMEs need to
formulate and apply schemes that protect their competitive advantage and improve their performances.

Technological developments have entered the fourth industrial revolution era, which began with the
introduction of the term "Industry 4.0" by Germany in 2011 and brought a significant impact on
industrial world [1]–[4]. Industry 4.0 is described as a major change that have taken place in the
manufacturing industry through the further development of sophisticated internet-based information
technology; resulting in high flexibility system, enabling cost efficiency (e.g. quality control cost,
maintenance cost, and inventory cost), increasing productivity, reducing time-to-market, promoting
ergonomic design and accuracy in forecasting, as well as integrating production facilities, supply chains,
and service systems within a value chain network

Frank et al classifies technologies into two layers 1) Front end technology and 2) Base technologies. The
four front end technologies are used to carry out tasks that help the organization meet the customer or
market needs. These technologies help in designing smart working, smart supply chain, smart
manufacturing, and smart products. The base technologies are used primarily to provide intelligence
and connectivity for front-end technologies [8]. During the implementation of Industry 4.0, the digital
twins can help in validating system performance. It further helps to directly conduct validation/test that
can quickly locate the inefficiency or malfunction or monitor flaws within the system. To cite some
instances, digital twins are used in smart manufacturing [39]; optimising a production line [40];
manufacturing system reconfiguration [41]; and smart workshop control and monitoring[42]. The four
technology pillars known as ABCD (artificial intelligence(AI), blockchain, cloud computing, big data
analytics) have been used for the digital transformation of the organization [43]. AI will help businesses
to achieve a competitive advantage. To cite an instance Airbus using AI to investigate the production
issues using a large amount of data and come with innovative solutions[44]. Bridgewater associates have
used AI to automate key parts of their operations. KPMG has even gone to the extent of automating
some parts of auditing services[45]. To be more effective in the usage of AI the first step is to use big
data, second, apply analytics and third predictions[43]. Blockchains are difficult to be hacked and there
is one of the powerful tools for business transformation [46]. Besides, it can reduce costs of verification
and the cost of intermediaries [47]. Some of the typical applications of blockchains in business are cross
border payments[48], blockchain for asset management[49], business-led collaborations [50], business
development[51], product lifecycle management [52]; smart manufacturing [53];[54].

Industry 4.0 implementation has been reported to be more efficient in the value creation, customisation
of products and services, flexibility and better mapping of manufacturing costs [55]–[58]. The quality of
the manufactured products is also improved, long-run operational costs and lead times are reduced due
to increased automation, digitisation and increased connectivity [59]. Customer satisfaction is also
enhanced due to new business models which create new value-creating mechanisms

One empirical study has also examined the benefits and challenges of Industry 4.0. To cite an instance
one study in SMEs found that the benefits of Industry 4.0 were a competitive advantage, improved
manufacturing quality, reduced operation cost, operational efficiency, and manufacturing flexibility

The new industrial revolution offers different opportunities for the industry, including real-time data
access, development of new skills, and achieving sustainable goals, among others. The concept of real-
time data between any process steps is another opportunity that Industry 4.0 offers to the enterprises,
removing one of the most difficult challenges of prior support systems—the lack of up-to-date
information [32]

Industry 4.0 appear to be a new ally in achieving sustainable manufacturing, which is one of the key
aspects to achieving sustainable development in the contemporary era, new industrial organization
paradigms with an intrinsic focus on resource efficiency and increased “corporate social responsibility”
[33]. Facilitated by Industry 4.0, the reduction of waste, energy and resource consumption, as well as
improved working conditions, can be achieved [35].

Based on these gaps, the following research questions arise: First, what critical psychological barriers
might organizations encounter in implementing i4.0 technologies? Second, what is the priority order of
these barriers? Third, what are the causal relationships among the shortlisted barriers? Fourth, what are
the most prominent psychological obstacles possessing high driving power?

The term “Industry 4.0” was coined very first at the Hanover Fair in 2011. It was adopted as a strategic
initiative by the German Government for revolutionizing the manufacturing industry in 2013. Because of
the various benefits of i4.0 to manufacturing organizations, it has gained increasing attention recently.
But it is still in the embryonic phase regarding academic research [8]. The researchers have mainly
conducted literature reviews in this area [30–32].

In order to analyze the psychological barriers to the implementation of industry 4.0, the proposed
methodology comprises four stages.

In the first stage, barriers to the successful implementation of i4.0 were identified based on the
literature review and experts’ inputs.

In the second stage, AHP was applied to determine the relative weights of the barriers, followed by a
final ranking of the obstacles through the TOPSIS analysis.
In the third stage, relationships between these barriers were analyzed from the perspectives of eight
experts employing the ISM technique.

In the end, MICMAC analysis was carried out to classify these barriers. Fig 1 depicts our methodological
approach

A successful implementation of BIS enables experts and managers of companies to take better decisions.
But according to [12, 11], risk of failure is high in implementing BI projects. Therefore, only 20% to 30%
of BI projects are considered successful [11]. [13] Stated that billions of US dollars are spent on BI
systems annually, but more than half of BI projects are ended with unrealized benefit. To implement a BI
project successfully and to gain the associated benefits, we need not only to identify the factors leading
to this success but also to prioritize these factors [14]. To rank and to prioritize the CSFs, several
decision-making techniques are available such as Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Analytical Network
Process (ANP) and Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) etc. [14] stated that coalescing fuzzy set
theory with AHP potentiates the accuracy of denouements.

Our prime goal is to develop an index which can summarize the level of human capital in a firm
efficiently.

The technology adoption literature has repeatedly used two renowned theoretical frameworks to
understand the antecedents of adoption and implementation of new technologies. These two are the
Rogers diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory (Rogers, 1983) and Depietro’s TOE framework (Depietro et
al., 1990). The DOI theory posits that a firm’s technology adoption is dependent on its organizational
and innovation characteristics, while the TOE framework proposes that three independent and
complementary contexts—technological context (TC), organizational context (OC), and environmental
context (EC)— facilitate technology adoption in organizations (Depietro et al., 1990). These contexts
interact to create a unique situation that enables the adoption and effective deployment of technologies
in the organization (Wang et al., 2010; Lin, 2014). Researchers have been skeptical about the validity of
DOI while studying complex technological adoptions as DOI does not incorporate the external
environmental factors that act as drivers for the technology implementation (Alshamaila et al., 2013;
Wang and Lo, 2016). Therefore, the EC in the TOE framework provides it with a substantial advantage
over the DOI because the environmental factors play an essential role and may enable or inhibit
technology adoption decisions (Hsu et al., 2014; Masood and Egger, 2019). The widespread use of the
TOE framework is due to its completeness and flexibility to incorporate different factors in accordance
with different technologies under study (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). The three contexts of the TOE
framework, that is, technological, organizational, and environmental context, incorporate various
dimensions and factors that impact technology adoption (as shown in Appendix A2). The TC of an
organization relates to “the internal and external technologies relevant to a firm” (Depietro et al., 1990).
The OC represents “characteristics and resources of the firm, including linking structures between
employees, intrafirm communication processes, firm size and amount of slack resources” (Depietro et
al., 1990). The EC describes “the arena in which a firm conducts its business: its industry, competitors,
and dealings with the government” (Depietro et al., 1990). These contexts may provide a unique set of
strategic enablers that aid in the implementation of a certain technology. The three complementary
contexts provided by the TOE framework seem relevant in the domain of DMTs, and thus, may lend
power to conduct empirical (and perhaps conceptual) work in investigating the implementation of
DMTs.

Evaluating Industry 4.0 technology application in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is an issue
that requires a multi-criteria strategy comprising quantitative and qualitative elements.

Carbon/harmful gas emission reduction: Reports indicate that industrial emission is the reason for
more than 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide (EPA, 2019). Experts believe
manufacturing digitization and the emergence of the fourth industrial revolution offers numerous
opportunities for the reduction of carbon emission (Ford and Despeisse, 2016; Kamble et al., 2018). IIoT
and AI-based production, for example, increase the efficiency and flexibility of production, reduce waste,
and minimize carbon emission index per each product (Jin et al., 2017). The opportunities offered by
Industry 4.0 for the development of new business models, such as the shift from mass production to the
mass customization and even product individualization, can optimize the consumer market and
contribute to the materialization of low-carbon future (Müller et al., 2018b, c), further contributing to
the environmental and social sustainability (Cai et al., 2019)

Corporate profitability improvement: The corporate profitability implications of Industry 4.0 have been
widely acknowledged (Hofmann and Rüsch, 2017; Kiel et al., 2017; Müller et al., 2018a). Industrial
reports show that the application of Industry 4.0 technology trends such as IIoT, additive manufacturing,
cloud service, and data analytics, and the development of design principles of Industry 4.0 such as smart
manufacturing and product personalization has been associated with numerous economic sustainability
opportunities such as (Dalenogare et al., 2018; Kamble et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2016); (i) material flow
optimization, (ii) better time to market of products, (iii) manufacturing space and facility optimization,
(iv) resources efficiency, (v) reduction of waste, (vi) superior product innovation and quality, (vii)
improved production capacity and reliability, (viii), strategic adaptability, and (ix) lower inventory costs.

This study aims to identify critical factors that influence the adoption of Social CRM in the enterprise by
using TOE framework and AHP techniques. First, we developed the model obtained from literature study
and it was validated by the experts. Second, case study in two companies was carried out to evaluate
developed model, they are Company 1 and Company 2

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a method used for decision making that involves multi-factor or
multi-criteria [14]. AHP technique was first developed in 1980 by Thomas L. Saaty. The main objective of
this technique is to resolve problems that are complex and difficult to unravel by changing them into
sequential hierarchy based on a ranking or a particular priority. AHP is highly efficient and robust
method for decision making because it is able to handle and resolve problems in both qualitative and
quantitative criteria [I5]. To obtain rational decisions using AHP, decision makers need to conduct some
steps.
The literature on technology adoption in FSC lacks TOE and determinants of adoption from an
organizational perspective. Thus, it necessitates the research agenda focusing on TOE and the factors of
technology adoption. Second, some research focuses on the hybrid approach of DOI, TOE and TAM in
other industries, but FSC studies lack such hybrid approaches which have the potential to elucidate
priorities and factors within the apparel industry. Third, most texts on I4.0 technologies in FSC follow
qualitative and case study methods. DOI and TOE frameworks should be applied to identify the factors
of I4.0 technology adoption in the apparel industry. Fourth, future studies should focus on the adoption
of sustainable technologies. In this review, only two articles discussed the importance and impact of
sustainable technologies in the apparel industry. Papahristou and Bilalis (2017) proposed a conceptual
framework to reduce environmental impact by adopting 3D printing in garment development and
design. Pathirana and Yarime (2018) examined the factors of energyefficient technologies in the
garment industry. In 2018, stakeholders of the fashion industry formed the Fashion Industry Charter for
Climate Action (FICCA) under the auspices of the United Nations Climate Change, which aims to achieve
zero emissions in the fashion industry by 2050. Signatories to FICCA have also targeted a 30% reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 by gradually phasing out coal-heat energy technologies. Thus,
sustainability, as an emerging metric to achieve competitiveness, dominates supply chain discourse and
is not limited to FSC