Data-driven prioritization of sustainable solution

dimensions for successful industry 4.0

implementation in SMEs - An exploratory research
using SAP-LAP and Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS
framework
Abstract: In the context of promoting sustainable development in SMEs, the present paper aims to identify the
key barriers, and rank potential solutions for the successful implementation of Industry 4.0 in SMEs by
considering stakeholders' perceptions. The research adopts a mixed-method three-phase framework consisting of
qualitative and quantitative methods. Phase I incorporates a literature review and SAP-LAP approach (Situation-
actor-process-Learning-action-performance) to investigate various criteria for I4.0 implementation in SMEs.
Phase II uses a fuzzy AHP (Analytical hierarchy process) and Phase III uses a fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for
Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) approach to prioritize and rank the solutions for sustainable
Industry 4.0 implementation. According to the findings of Phase I, Industry 4.0 implementation criteria are
grouped into five broad criteria viz. strategy, human resource, process, technology, digital integration, 26
subcriteria, and 14 action/solutions. The solutions proposed for I4.0 implementation in Phase I are ranked using
integrated fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS in Phase II and Phase III. The first three ranked solutions with high closeness
coefficients are "strategic collaborations with internal and external partners (0.616)", "coordination among key
stakeholders (0.553)," and "Launching skill/ training program (0.411)". The novelty of the work lies in the
application of a mixed method approach to analyze and rank the I4.0 solutions considering sustainability issues,
which may help SMEs successfully implement Industry 4.0.
Keywords: SAP-LAP, Industry 4.0, fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS, sustainable environment, small and medium
enterprises.

1. Introduction
Sustainability encompasses a diverse range of dimensions within the human sphere, as underscored by Beier et
al. (2018). This concept goes beyond environmental considerations, also encompassing the preservation of
economic and social resources, as highlighted by Ford and Despeisse (2016). Despite its relatively recent
conceptualization, sustainability has historical roots in enduring movements like conservationism and socio-
economic justice (Caradonna, 2014). The extensive literature on sustainability underscores academia's crucial
role in shaping and realizing its fundamental pillars: economic, environmental, and social sustainability, as
articulated by Ford and Despeisse (2016) and Kamble et al. (2018).
The central tenet of environmental sustainability revolves around safeguarding the equilibrium of Earth's
environmental systems. This involves a meticulous balance between the utilization and restoration of natural
resources, all while upholding the integrity of the ecological framework (Glavić and Lukman, 2007). On the
other hand, economic sustainability revolves around achieving durable economic growth while simultaneously
preserving both social and environmental resources. Social sustainability involves the acknowledgment and
effective management of the positive and negative impacts of business, economic, environmental, and
technological factors on individuals. The ultimate objective of social sustainability is the establishment of
vibrant and liveable communities, ensuring protection against discrimination and guaranteeing universal human
rights. This includes access to essential amenities like healthcare and security (Dempsey et al., 2011).
Persistently, the sustainability implications of Industry 4.0 deserve thorough academic scrutiny, considering the
historical industrial revolutions that led to substantial and sometimes unforeseen social, economic, and
environmental transformations.
German organizations were the first to see I4.0 benefits, which include intelligent production processes and
more efficient use of existing resources, among other things (Shukla and Shankar, 2023; Veile et al., 2019;

1
Castelo-Branco et al., 2019). The development of technologies such as CPS, IIoT, digital twin (DT), big data,
cloud analytics, etc., has encouraged firms to adopt smart manufacturing techniques. Moreover, Smart
manufacturing and I4.0 principles have increased production output dramatically while adverse side effects have
decreased. All these things must be considered because their outcomes will impact professions, organizations,
societies, and scientific research (Iyer, 2018). Consequently, people can pursue new paths in their professional
lives. I4.0 uses cyber technologies to facilitate the development of cutting-edge commercial and operational
practices (Haricha et al., 2023; Ng et al., 2022; Ghobakhloo et al., 2021). Together, public and private sector
officials, academics, and industry professionals can better understand the possibilities and requirements of
intelligent manufacturing (Phuyal et al., 2020; Shet and Pereira, 2021).
Various researchers have undertaken research on industry 4.0 adoption; however, since industry 4.0 has
not yet been implemented successfully in SMEs in developing countries and the barriers affecting I4.0
implementation have not been thoroughly examined in the extant literature, the concept is still theoretical and
needs further investigation (Bajic et al., 2020; Pacchini et al., 2019). The adoption of I4.0 has been the subject of
several recent studies such as Pozzi et al. (2023), Vinodh and Shimray (2022), Majumdar et al. (2021), Soni and
Naik (2020), Moeuf et al. (2020), Frank et al. (2019) and Galati and Bigliardi (2019). In their discussion of
Industry 4.0, the primary focus was on technical knowledge, intelligent manufacturing, integration of cyber
physical systems and the need for a paradigm shift in organizational structures, workforce skills, and business
models to harness the full potential of this technological evolution. The studies also bring about opportunities,
problems, the need for strategic planning, and significant technological advancements for successful
implementation of I4.0.
Research on the sustainability impact and I4.0 implementation is presently in its initial stages, and there
exists a necessity for in-depth exploration and examination of the multifaceted impacts: economic,
environmental, and social, stemming from the digitization of manufacturing processes within the context of
Industry 4.0 followed by investigation of I4.0 implementation solution dimensions. When implementing
intelligent manufacturing practices, adopting "Industry 4.0" principles is rising in popularity as a practical
solution. Apart from that, a clear understanding of the benefits and consequences that industry 4.0 adoption will
have in practice (Luthra and Mangla, 2018) is required for successful implementation. Companies can only
adopt Industry 4.0 if they understand how, it would be beneficial for them (Bibby and Dehe, 2018; Calabrese et
al., 2022). However, implementing I4.0 transcends the broad adoption of individual technologies (Internet of
things, artificial intelligence, big data analytics, cyber-physical systems, etc.); it necessitates a thorough
knowledge of the dimensions integral to effective I4.0 implementation. According to Elibal and Özceylan,
(2021) organizations encounter multifaceted challenges, encompassing strategic decision-making, technology
integration, data governance, cybersecurity, and workforce transformation for I4.0 implementation. Until now,
there has been no systematic study of how companies incorporate I4.0 into their daily operations (Sima et al.,
2020; Issa et al., 2018). Therefore, most companies need a solid strategic roadmap in terms of solutions for
integrating I4.0 into their operations (Schumacher et al., 2016).
To this effect, in the work, the authors provided a mixed method framework in which SAP-LAP is used to
comprehend the barriers and key solutions for I4.0 implementation for sustainable development in SMEs by
considering stakeholders perceptions. To gain a better understanding of the dimensions that influence the I4.0
implementation, the authors conducted an action-based study to summarize the reasons or barriers that may
affect the successful implementation of I4.0 in their organizations by using the SAP-LAP approach. Based on
the outcomes of the SAP-LAP, the I4.0 indicators were put into five groups called "criteria.”, with 26
subcategories and 14 sustainable solutions. A hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach has been used to determine
how significant the solutions are? And how they can be prioritized? As it is not possible to simultaneously
implement all the proposed solutions, it is always preferable to prioritize those solutions that help to overcome
the barriers for successful I4.0 implementation. The main contributions of the research work undertaken are:
 Identification of key barriers that affect the implementation of I4.0 in SMEs for sustainable
development.
 Identification and mapping of solution dimensions with barriers that help SMEs in sustainable
development.
 Prioritization of the proposed solutions for implementing 14.0 sustainable dimensions.

2
 This research paper has a total of six sections. The first section presents an introduction. The second
section presents a literature review. The details of the research methodology can be found in section 3. The
illustration of the methodology is presented in section 4. Section 5 discusses the results and discussion, and
section 6 discusses the conclusions.
2. Literature review
Various studies have been done with the intent of identifying and assessing dimensions for sustainable
development in SMEs. Researchers have employed a wide range of approaches. The studies differ regarding the
methods and strategies used to delve into various aspects of implementing the I4.0 idea in industrial enterprises.
This section details the contributions made by the cited works.
Implementing I4.0 for sustainable development in SMEs is challenging in emerging economies because of
a need for more understanding of how it will work for them - the absence of public pressure, environmental
concerns, and a market sensitive to pricing. In India, activities related to returning management are typically
considered a cost of doing business. As a result, these activities are performed uncontrolled and are usually
carried out by hawkers, peddlers, and merchants (Majumdar et al., 2021). Along with coordination and
collaboration from industry 4.0 partners, monetary and financial support from the government is required to
implement I4.0 successfully. The information gleaned by an in-depth investigation of the obstacles posed by
Industry 4.0 can be productively utilized by decision-makers in their planning (Ghobakhloo and Iranmanesh,
2021). Several studies have identified barriers to I4.0 adoption without considering sustainable challenges,
which must be overcomed to implement industry 4.0 practices effectively. Table 1 presents the previous
literature studies.

3
 Table 1: Literature review
Sr.no Author/year Work done Literature gap
.
1. Shukla and The authors assessed the digital readiness of Indian SMEs and the The results of the study can be compared with other MCDM
Shankar, 2023 identified I4.0 dimensions are ranked using ‘Stepwise Weight Assessment methods to assess the digital readiness for sustainable
Ratio Analysis (SWARA)’. development of processes.
2. Haricha et al., 2023 The authors performed a systematic literature review process for The prioritization of the dimensions is not performed to assist in
advancement in technology used for smart manufacturing adoption and decision making. This may be performed using fuzzy AHP and
presented five levels of technology smart manufacturing adoption. fuzzy TOPSIS approach.
3. Nimawat and The authors conducted survey on readiness of I4.0 adoption using The future study may focus on the barriers to execute Industry
Gidwani, 2023 Spearman’s correlation test and Chi-square test. The tests have been 4.0 and need to focus on the important issues for developing
employed for analysing the significant relationship among I4.0 dimensions nations like India. Validation of the results may be performed.
and I4.0 benefits
4. Enrique et al., 2023 The authors used Exploratory Factor Analysis to define four main The authors have focused only on the technological aspects of
technology arrangements based on 18 Industry 4.0 technologies: Vertical industry 4.0 implementation. Other aspects like strategic, human
Integration, Virtual Manufacturing, Advanced Manufacturing Processing resource, process, and integration may be explored for
Technologies, and Online Traceability. successful I4.0 implementation for sustainable development in
SMEs.
5. Pozzi et al., 2023 The authors discussed critical success factors concerning I4.0 A parallel study in other industrial sectors can be conducted and
technologies- a case study of eight companies in Italy who implemented cross country comparison can be conducted by taking
I4.0 technologies in its processes. stakeholders perceptions.
6. Calabrese et al., The author investigated the relationship among I4.0 technologies, barriers, More rigorous research may be carried out for validating the
2022 and goals by performing systematic literature review on all peer reviewed relationships among barriers and proposing solutions.
managerial research.
7. Vinodh and The authors analysed and ranked the identified eighteen barriers to lean six The authors used the interpretive ranking process for the
Shimray, 2022 sigma and Industry 4.0 implementation. They observed lack of top prioritization of barriers. Other decision-making tools like fuzzy
management commitment, involvement are potential barriers. AHP TOPSIS may be used to validate the results.
8. Majumdar et al., The study focuses on identification of barriers to industry 4.0 The authors have studied a case of Indian textile and clothing
2021 implementation through literature review and analysed using interpretive industry. Other industries may be covered for Industry 4.0
structural modelling (ISM) and presented a triple helix framework. implementation for generalisation of barriers.
9. Ghobakhloo and The authors presented strategic guidelines for digital transformation The future study may focus on framing guidelines or proposing
Iranmanesh, 2021 success in industry 4.0. solutions for success of industry 4.0 adoption in SMEs.
10. Kumar et al., 2021 The authors analysed the potential barriers to Industry 4.0 implementation Research can be extended by including barriers from

4
 in manufacturing organizations using ISM and MICMAC analysis.
11. Bag et al., 2021 Practice-based view (PBV) and Dynamic capability view (DCV) theories
are used by authors to introduce I4.0 adoption in manufacturing
companies.
12. Caiado et al., 2021 Authors developed a fuzzy logic-based 14.0 maturity model for operations
and supply chain constructed through a multi-method approach.
stakeholders and investigated using other techniques (Fuzzy
AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS) to unlock more findings regarding I4.0
implementation for sustainable development in SMEs.
Other tools like fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS may be used to
model the situation and validate the results.
Future studied may work on group decision making with various
MCDM methods like fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS.

13. Dutta et al., 2021 The authors presented a conceptual study for digitalization priorities of Strategies or sustainable solutions to integrate systems for I4.0
quality control processes in SMEs in Industry 4.0 environment. adoption may be provided or ranked using MCDM approaches.

14. Tabim et al., 2021 Investigated the main factors which influence the vertical integration in The action based cross sector/cross country research may be
I4.0 journey. Presented result based on 10 manufacturing companies conducted to validate the findings for horizontal integration of
established in Brazil. I4.0 dimensions too.
15. Volberda et al., Authors identified three pillars: Cognitive frames, routines, and Use of fuzzy qualitative methods for better understanding of
2021 organizational forms for the digital transformation stakeholders’ perceptions may be done.
16. Kamble et al., 2020 A model for Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing adoption is developed Study only focussed on the technological aspects for I4.0
utilizing structural equation modelling implementation which can be extended using other dimensions
too.
17. Moeuf et al., 2020 The authors identified critical success factors, risks and opportunities for The results of the study can be validated using fuzzy methods.
Industry 4.0 implementation in SMEs using a Delphi method taking inputs
from 12 experts.
18. Mittal et al., 2020 The authors developed a theoretical smart manufacturing adoption The future studies shall apply the proposed and tailor the tool for
framework in SMEs. refining the needs of specific SMEs
19. Rauch et al., 2019 Authors assessed requirements and barriers to implement Industry 4.0 in a Future research may work upon the statistical validation of
project entitled “SME 4.0 – Industry 4.0 for SMEs”. identified barriers for I4.0 implementation in Indian SMEs
20. Ardito et al., 2019 Mapped digital technologies regarding supply chain integration in industry Focus was on supply chain integration in industry 4.0
4.0 environment. environment. Other sustainable dimensions may be considered
for I4.0 implementation.

5
According to the findings of the literature review, these barriers, when viewed from the perspective of Indian
SMEs, can be broken down into five main categories.
Strategic barriers: Lack of top management, lack of action plan for digitization, lack of infrastructure and
automation, lack of internal and external collaboration on digitization, lack of upgradation of existing systems,
and lack of financial support are all strategic factors. It was discovered by Vinodh and Shimray (2022),
Ghobakhloo and Iranmanesh (2021), Pozzi et al. (2023), and Majumdar et al. (2021) that top management was
unwilling and had little interest in Industry 4.0. As a result of shifts in the present-day business climate,
competitive priorities, technical advancements, customer behaviors, and collaborative endeavors must be
accounted for in formulating policies and strategic plans for Industry 4.0 (Volberda et al., 2021; Ghobakhloo,
2018).
Human resources barriers: Human resource barriers include lack of project management experience, lack of
competence and appropriate skillset, lack of coordination among employees, lack of training/experience in
emerging technologies, and lack of awareness regarding I4.0. Majumdar et al. (2021) observed that
implementing I4.0 would necessitate numerous current structures and procedures adjustments. The workforce
would need more preparation for I4.0 in budgeting, cost-benefit assessment, resource allocation, etc. Most
companies consistently need more skilled workers. The current staff may need more expertise and training
(Shukla and Shankar, 2023; Bag et al., 2021; Moeuf et al., 2020; Rauch et al., 2019).
Process barriers: Process barriers include lack of digitization for internal process management, lack of
digitization for external process management, lack of digitization of real-time status of process data, lack of
digitization of product/ process design data, and lack of digitization for inbound/ outbound logistics with
operations (Dutta et al., 2021; Caiado et al., 2021; Ardito et al., 2019; Kazancoglu and Ozkan-Ozen, 2018).
Technology barriers: Technology barriers include a lack of knowledge about principal technologies, a lack of
data-driven predictive maintenance tools, a lack of traceability systems to identify products and components, a
lack of cloud analytics services, and a lack of security in IT services (Shukla and Shankar, 2023; Parhi et al.,
2022; Ghobakhloo et al., 2022; Majumdar et al., 2021; Khanzode et al., 2021). The capabilities of the
technological infrastructure directly impact the efficiency of a company. The industry's reliance on unsecured IT
services was a significant problem because of outdated technology. The lack of effective communication
between departments and organizations was the most significant barrier to knowledge sharing among I4.0
partners (Nimawat and Gidwani, 2023; Khanzode et al., 2021; Warner and Wäger, 2019).
Digital integration barriers: The digital integration barriers are lack of vertical coordination among various
departments within the organization, lack of horizontal coordination among firms, lack of standardized systems
for connectivity, lack of integration with ERP and information exchange among stakeholders, lack of trust
among stakeholders (Nimawat and Gidwani, 2023; Tabim et al., 2021; Majumdar et al., 2021).

3. Research methodology
A schematic representation of the research methodology is illustrated in Figure 1. It consists of three phases.
Phase I consists of the identification of barriers and solutions based on literature review and SAP-LAP analysis
followed by validity and reliability of both barriers and solutions. Phase II consists of the application of fuzzy
AHP for getting weights of each barrier and Phase III uses the fuzzy TOPSIS tool for utilizing the weights
(obtained in Phase II) for ranking the proposed solutions. The data acquisition steps adopted in these three
phases are as follows:
1. Identification of potential respondents from SMEs (Shown in Table A1 in Appendix A).
2. Application of participants' observing approach (To comprehend the participants' beliefs and perception of
activities/items related to I4.0 barriers in their organizations.
3. Summarizing the potential barriers and solutions for sustainable I4.0 implementation in SMEs.
4. Checking the potential barriers and proposed solutions for reliability by performing statistical tests.
5. Analysis of barriers by using fuzzy AHP. Weights of the barriers were calculated through fuzzy AHP.
These weights form the basis for the analysis of proposed solutions that help in I4.0 implementation.
Initially, a fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix for the main solution is obtained. The weights are calculated
for each identified category and subcategories using Chang’s extent analyses.
6. Prioritization of sustainable solution dimensions using fuzzy TOPSIS approach.

6
 Identifying domain experts (academician
practitioners, experts)

Phase I
Literature review Interplay of SAP-LAP
Identification of
barriers and
solutions
Identifying barriers for I4.0 Identifying sustainable solutions for
implementation I4.0 implementation

Validating and finalizing barriers Validating and finalizing solutions

Application of fuzzy AHP

Weight calculations
Phase II
Fuzzy AHP

No Approve
Weights?

Yes

Application of Fuzzy TOPSIS

Preparation of linguistic rating matrix

Computation of solutions global fuzzy ratings

Normalization of fuzzy matrix

Computation of weighted normalized fuzzy matrix

Phase III
Fuzzy TOPSIS
Determination of fuzzy positive ideal solution (FPIS)
and fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS)

Calculation of distances from FNIS and FPIS

Determine closeness coefficient (𝐶𝐶𝑖)

Ranking the solutions in descending order of their 𝐶𝐶𝑖

Figure 1: Methodology Framework
3.1 Phase I: Identification of barriers and potential sustainable solutions for I4.0 implementation
In this phase, authors identify barriers and potential sustainable I4.0 solutions using literature review, followed
by gathering data using a case-based approach to acquire data about industry 4.0 dimensions in manufacturing
SMEs. The collected data was then utilized for SAP-LAP analysis. The participant observing approach to study

7
practitioners' beliefs and perceptions regarding different organizations' industry 4.0 activities was considered.
Additionally, to enhance our understanding, semi-structured interviews with respondents were carried out.
The following paragraph discusses the proposed methods used in the methodology framework. The SAP-
LAP analysis is used to understand managerial activities, challenges, and concerns (Sushil, 2000). It provides a
high-quality methodology for inquiring, which is comprehensive due to its integration of logical models and
optimization of learning algorithms. In the literature, authors have used SAP-LAP to examine a variety of case
situations, including those involving the supply chain (Luthra et al., 2014), information technology (Thakkar et
al., 2008), energy security (Soni et al., 2016), lean manufacturing (Chauhan and Singh, 2013), and others. The
"situation" refers to the external and internal context of the company, including its analysis of relevant historical
events and projections about future trends related to the issue at hand. The "process" is studied to learn more
about the steps involved and why and how those steps are essential for achieving the desired results. The
process's guiding premise is called into question, then specific questions are posed to generate alternatives. Data
synthesis in SAP kicks off the LAP procedure. By and large, the "key learnings" are the issues that are found by
LAP. Key insights will inform the subsequent initiatives proposed to improve the situation and its associated
procedures. Finally, we investigate how these interventions affect the efficiency of the situation, the actor, and
the process. Because each intervention changes the context and necessitates new research, the SAP-LAP
paradigm can be employed repeatedly. The SAP-LAP process used for identification of key barriers/ potential
solutions for I4.0 implementation and is described in Section 4.1. Phase II uses the fuzzy AHP technique to
compute weights with respect to strategy, human resource, process, technology, and digital integration.

3.2 Phase II: Fuzzy AHP

Satty (1980) gave AHP a quantitative MCDM technique. Because of its uneven judgment scale and lack of
ambiguity, Satty's AHP is only useful in very clear settings, which makes judgment selection subjective. To
tackle this problem, fuzzy logic is used. It makes use of linguistic factors to include respondents' ambiguous
judgements. Many researchers employed this method (Carnero, 2014; Prakash and Barua, 2015). Table 2 shows
the linguistic terms and associated triangular fuzzy numbers.
Table 2: Linguistic terms with assigned triangular fuzzy number (TFN)
Linguisti Associated Linguistic Associated
c terms TFN terms TFN
VL (1,2,3) H (4,5,6)
L (2,3,4) VH (5,6,7)
M (3,4,5) E (6,7,8)
3.3.1 Definition 1: If K 1=( ⍺ 1 , β 1 , γ 1 ) and K 2=( ⍺ 2 , β 2 , γ 2) are fuzzy triangular numbers, algebraic
operations can be stated as follows [Patil and Kant, 2014]:
K 1 ⊕ K 2=( ⍺1 , β 1 , γ 1 ) ⊕ ( ⍺2 , β2 , γ 2 )=( ⍺1+ ⍺2 , β1 + β 2 , γ 1 +γ 2 ) (3 . 1)
K 1 ⊙ K 2=( ⍺1 , β 1 , γ 1 ) ⊙ ( ⍺2 , β2 , γ 2 )=( ⍺1−⍺2 , β 1−β 2 , γ 1−γ 2 ) (3.2)
K 1 ⊗ K 2=( ⍺1 , β 1 , γ 1 ) ⊗ ( ⍺2 , β2 , γ 2 )=( ⍺1 ⍺2 , β 1 β 2 , γ 1 γ 2 ) (3.3)
K 1 ⊘ K 2=( ⍺1 , β 1 , γ 1 ) ⊘(⍺2 , β 2 , γ 2 )=( ⍺1 /⍺2 , β 1 / β 2 , γ 1 /γ 2) (3.4)
μ ⊗ K 1=( μ ⍺1 , μ β1 , μ γ 1 ) where μ>0(3.5)

K −1
1 =( ⍺1 , β1 , γ 1) =
−1
( 1 1 1
, ,
⍺1 β 1 γ 1 )
(3.6)
Using the technique of extent analysis developed by Chang (1992), Carnero (2014) calls for the application of
the FAHP procedure.
1 2 3 m j
M g , M g , M g , … . M g (3.7)Where M g = Fuzzy triangular numbers
i i i i i

gi = Target set
i=1 , 2 ,3 , 4 ,5 , … n
j=1 ,2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , … m
The analysis by Chang can be broken down into the following steps:
The first step is to define the ith criterion's fuzzy synthetic extent value (Ei).

8
 [∑ ∑ ]
m n m −1

Ei =∑ M × j
gi M j
gi (3.8)
j =1 i=1 j=1

(∑ )
m m m m

∑M j
gi = ⍺ij , ∑ β ij , ∑ γ ij (3.9)
j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1

[∑ ∑ ]
−1

( )
n m
j 1 1 1
M gi = i=1 j=1
, i=1 j=1
, i=1 j =1
(3.10)
i=1 j=1
∑ ∑ γij ∑ ∑ β ij ∑ ∑ ⍺ij
n m n m n m

Where ⍺ = lower limit, β = most promising, and γ = upper limit.

The second step gives the degree of possibility for E2= ( ⍺2 , β2 , γ 2 ) and E1= ( ⍺1 , β1 , γ 1) can be found as
follows:
¿
[
V ( E2 ≥ E 1 )= y ≥ x min ( σ E ( x ) , σ E ( y ) ) (3.11)
1 2 ]
Each criterion's membership function axis values are x and y. The Equation (3.11) can also be written as

{
1, if β 2 ≥ β 1
0 , if ⍺1 ≥ γ 2
V ( E2 ≥ E 1 )= (3.12)
⍺1−γ 2
, otherwise
( β 2−γ 2 ) −( β 1−⍺1)
Where d is the intersection point of E 1 and E2. Figure 2 shows the interaction between fuzzy numbers. We
require both V ( E2 ≥ E 1 ) and V ( E1 ≥ E 2 ) to evaluate the difference between E1 and E2.

Figure 2: Fuzzy number intersections

In the third step, we determine the probability of a convex fuzzy number Ei ( i=1 ,2 , … k ) is larger than
another by the formula:
V ( E ≥ E 1 , E2 , … . E k )=V [ ( E ≥ E1 ) , ( E ≥ E2 ) , … ( E ≥ E k ) ]
V ( E ≥ E 1 , E2 , … . E k )=minV ( E ≥ E1 ) , i=1 ,2 , 3 … . k (3.13)
'
Assume that d ( K i )=minV ( E i ≥ Ek )
The following equation gives weight vectors for the case where k =1 ,2 , … n , k ≠ i
T
W =( d ( K 1 ) ,d ( K 2 ) , ….. d ( K m ) ) (3.14)
' ' ' '

The following equation governs the normalization of weight vectors.

T
W =( d ( K 1 ) , d ( K 2 ) ,… .. d ( K m ) ) (3.15)

Phase III incorporates the fuzzy TOPSIS approach to prioritize the actions/solutions obtained from Stage I.

3.4 Phase III: Fuzzy TOPSIS

9
Hwang and Yoon (1981) also presented an MCDM approach called TOPSIS. Specifically, it assumes that the
value of the selective attribute should be as close as possible to the minimum and maximum values of the
distance to the positive and negative ideal solutions, respectively. Within the traditional TOPSIS method,
people's choices are ranked using a single, objective metric. However, in practice, a method that considers
uncertainty and imprecision rather than crisp value is preferable. Given that fuzzy environments involve
ambiguity in decision-making (Patil and Kant, 2014), the Fuzzy TOPSIS technique is a useful tool for
solving practical issues.
Fuzzy TOPSIS is utilized in this study in the following ways:
1st step: Following the criteria, rating values are to be assigned to the linguistic variables. Table 3 explains the
rating system that was applied. In addition, develop a matrix for the various possible alternatives.
Table 3: Numeric terms with assigned triangular fuzzy number
Numeric terms Associated TFN Numeric terms Associated TFN
1 (1,1,1) 6 (5,6,7)
2 (1,2,3) 7 (6,7,8)
3 (2,3,4) 8 (7,8,9)
4 (3,4,5) 9 (9,9,9)
5 (4,5,6)
2nd step: Computation of solutions’ global fuzzy ratings
Consider the case where the N thdecision maker has a fuzzy rating of
X abN =( ⍺abN , β abN , γ abN )
Where a=1 , 2 ,3 , … m ; b=1 , 2 ,3 , … n
Then, X ab provides the fuzzy aggregate ratings of the solutions to each criterion.
X ab=( ⍺ab , β ab , γ ab ) (3.16)
N
1
where a=
min
N {⍺abN }, b= N
∑ β abN , c=minN{ γabN } ,
N =1
3rd step: Computation of normalized fuzzy matrix
By using a linear scale conversion, normalization of data is done to make the scales consistent. Mathematically
it is represented by B.
B=[ Pij ]m ×n
Where a=1 , 2 ,3 , … m ; b=1 , 2 ,3 , … n

(
aij b ij c ij
) ¿
Pij = ¿ , ¿ , ¿ W h ere c j=max of cij ( benefit criteria ) (3.17)
c j cj cj
Pij =¿
4th step: Compute a weighted normalized matrix using the following equations.
V = [ v ij ]m ×n (3.19)
Where a=1 , 2 ,3 , … m ; b=1 , 2 ,3 , … n
where v= pij ⊗ w j
5th step: Compute FNIS and FPIS using the following equations:
+¿=¿¿
A
'
if j ∊ J , j=1 ,2 , … n
−¿=¿¿
A
'
if j ∊ J , j=1 ,2 , … n
6th step: Calculation of distances from FNIS and FPIS
+¿=¿¿¿
di
−¿=¿¿ ¿
di
7th step: Compute the coefficient of closeness (CC i )

10
 −¿
di
CC i = −¿+ d+i ¿ , i=1 , 2 ,… m .C i ∊( 0 ,1 ) (3.24)¿
¿
di ¿
8th step: Ranking the solutions in descending order of their CC i
4. Framework illustration
As the study focuses on SMEs in the northern part of the country, the authors initially contacted roughly 250
SMEs listed in the country's northern region with the Ministry of MSMEs. There were 55 acceptable responses
from participants. They are all ISO-certified SMEs. From this first sample (N=55) of manufacturing SMEs, the
respondent SMEs (about twenty enterprises) were chosen to undertake semi-structured interviews and
observations. Purposive sampling (Lunneborg, 2007) is used to pick the sample using the following criteria: An
established manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprise (i) with at least five years in business, (ii)
committed to I4.0 implementation.
The respondents' details are provided in Table A1 in Appendix A. The companies specialize in automotive
production, high-precision drill making, manufacturing, machinery and equipment, manufacturing, automotive
production, railway and metro, and other projects.
After that, the bulk of the interview focused on how candidates would approach implementing Industry
4.0. After a month of consistent interviews, the author concluded that no further insights could be gleaned from
the respondents (i.e., they had reached "saturation" (McCutcheon and Meredith, 1993).
4.1 Phase I: Identification of barriers and solutions through SAP-LAP
The six-step SAP-LAP procedure is used for qualitative analysis.
SAP-LAP analysis: It is used to get a clear picture of the topics brought up by the companies' various
stakeholders. It aids in depicting the circumstance and gives a framework for qualitative inquiry that may be
applied to understand events, problems, and difficulties logically. In Figure 3, we can see the relationships
between the various parts of SAP-LAP, including their interactions and those with one another. Here is a quick
rundown of the parts:

Situation (S)
What is the status of I4.0 implementation in SMEs?

Process (P)
Interplay of What
SAP are the key processes responsible for I4.0 Implementation?

Actor (A)
Who are the key stakeholders in I4.0 Implementation?

Learning (L)
What is our understanding from SAP interplay?

Action (A)
What are the needed steps to be taken?

Performance (P)
How the actions result in improvement?

Figure 3: SAP-LAP analysis framework

Actor: First, we identified the critical actors/stakeholders inside the responding companies so that we could
conduct participant observation and interviews to gather the necessary data and replies. The authors initially
contacted roughly 250 SMEs listed in the country's northern region with the Ministry of MSMEs. There were 55
acceptable responses from participants. They are all ISO-certified SMEs. From this first sample (N=55) of
manufacturing SMEs, the respondent SMEs (about twenty enterprises) were chosen to undertake semi-
structured interviews and observations.

11
 Situation: The current state of several I4.0 efforts is described at this stage based on information provided
by respondents. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken (respondents' profiles are shown in Table A1 in
Appendix A) to deepen the insights garnered through participant observations. (As presented below. An
interview guide, comprised of questions about various industry 4.0 processes, was designed to appraise the
existing situation based on the author's observations. This is a small sample of the questions: When it comes to
Industry 4.0, what constitutes a successful rollout in your opinion? Has the organization implemented Industry
4.0 processes? How familiar are you with process reference models? How does the process reference model
affect digitalization efforts? In your opinion, what challenges must be overcome before a company can
successfully embrace I4.0? When implementing I4.0, how do operational and contextual aspects play a role? For
you, what aspects make it easier for Industry 4.0 to be widely adopted? How would you characterize the
contextual link between the criteria influencing industry 4.0 adoption? The typical length of an interview ranges
between 15-20 minutes. First, the study's parameters and background were established. The practitioners who
digitized were then asked preliminary questions to elicit their knowledge. After a month of consistent
interviews, the author concluded that no further insights could be gleaned from the respondents (i.e., they had
reached "saturation" (McCutcheon and Meredith, 1993). Table 4 summarizes interview responses (column 2)
about all I4.0 categories illuminating numerous problems regarding industry 4.0 processes as reported by the
respondents (column 3).
Process: Successful Industry 4.0 implementation was the primary intent of this section. There are various
key processes involved in I4.0 implementation. The following questions were formulated to investigate the
current status of processes in respondent organization: How do you think contextual and operational factors
affect the process of I4.0 implementation? How internal and external processes are managed? How is the
process data collected? How are the logistics and supply chain operations managed? How are maintenance
processes carried out? Whether real-time product/process data done to manage operations? How are security
issues handled? Table 4, column 4 presents the details of key barriers as summarized from interview excerpts.

12
 Table 4: Summary of excerpts of respondents
Area/ situation Excerpts Responde Barriers
nts’ ID
Strategy Support from top leaders was not observed constantly in Industry 4.0 implementation. Without E01, E02, Lack of action plan for digitization, lack
strong leadership support, allocating resources, making strategic decisions, and mobilizing the E03, E04, of top management commitment, lack of
organization toward Industry 4.0 adoption becomes difficult. A clear vision and action plan were E05, E10, infrastructure and automation, lack of
missing. Lack of infrastructure and automation was prevalent. Outdated systems pose a E18 internal and external collaboration on
hindrance to automation. Lack of collaborations among internal and external partners which is digitization, lack of upgradation of
responsible for sharing knowledge for serving Industry 4.0 implementation. Limited financial existing systems, lack of financial
support exists. Resistance to change is persistent. support
Human Observed lack of project management experience which results in effective planning, execution, E04, E06, Lack of experience in project
resource and monitoring of Industry 4.0 implementation project. No appropriate skill and competency for E12, E13, management, lack of competence and
adopting advanced technology. For that training of employees is required. Lack of knowledge E17, E19 appropriate skillset, lack of coordination
about the Industry 4.0 paradigm. Minimal coordination among those involved in digital among employees, lack of
transformation is observed. Observed the new business opportunities with the development of training/experience in emerging
human resources. technologies, lack of awareness
regarding industry 4.0
Processes Minimal access to visibility and insights into operations. Traditional manual processes and E01, E05, Lack of internal process management,
obsolete systems hinder I4.0 implementation. The lack of digitization for external process E06, E14, lack of external process management,
management hinders collaboration and information sharing with suppliers, partners, and E15, E20 lack of real-time status of process data,
consumers. The lack of digitization of real-time process data status prevents organizations from lack of digitization of product/ process
quickly obtaining actionable insights and making well-informed decisions. Absence of design data, lack of digitization for
product/process design data digitization. Also, absence of digitization in logistics. inbound/ outbound logistics operations
Technologies They failed to use critical technologies due to a lack of knowledge. A lack of data-driven E02, E07, Lack of knowledge about principal
predictive maintenance technologies can cause factory downtime and inefficiency. Lack of E08, E09, technologies, lack of data-driven
openness, accountability, and product and component traceability inhibits supply chain E11, E16 predictive maintenance tool, lack of
transparency and quality control. Without cloud analytics services, firms can't use data to make traceability systems to identify products
decisions or optimize. Finally, poor IT security threatens data privacy and Industry 4.0 adoption and components, lack of cloud analytics
by weakening trust. services, lack of security in IT services
Digital Face barriers in the integration of information systems. Connectivity issues, seamless data E01, E05, Lack of vertical co-ordination, lack of
integration exchange issues. Horizontal coordination is another big issue. implementation of standardized E06, E10, horizontal co-ordination, lack of
mechanisms for connectivity. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system integration and E15, E20 standardized systems for connectivity,
stakeholder confidence building for Digital Integration is missing. lack of integration with ERP and
information exchange among
stakeholders, lack of trust among
stakeholders

13
 Learning: This section presents the key learnings as study outcomes. Table 5 displays key learnings which
consists of I4.0 implementation barriers under five primary areas, viz. strategy, human resource, process,
technology, and digital integration, with different subcategories along with Cronbach alpha (reliability score).
The value of Cronbach’s alpha exceeding 0.60 considered acceptable for factor reliability (Hair et al., 2010;
Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). The value of Cronbach’s alpha for the barriers is 0.930. Initiating front-end actions
on the situation (current I4.0 status in SMEs), actor (stakeholders regarding I4.0 implementation), process (core
processes such as industry 4.0 strategy, human resource, processes, technology, digital integration, etc.), or
relevant interfaces is the next step in applying the lessons learned. One example is the interplay of process and
actor, which specifies changes to organizational structure and strategy to execute I4.0 successfully. The
interplay of situation and actor relates to organizational culture and politics, which are crucial for the growth of
I4.0 implementation. In contrast, the interplay of situation and process interface directs unexpected situations.
Table 5: Key learnings (Barriers)
Strategy Human resource Process Technology Digital integration
 Lack of action  Lack of experience  Lack of internal  Lack of  Lack of vertical
plan for in project process knowledge about co-ordination
digitization management management principal (0.670)
(0.822) (0.626) (0.707) technologies  Lack of
 Lack of top  Lack of  Lack of external (0.955) horizontal co-
management competence and process  Lack of data- ordination (0.624)
commitment appropriate skillset management driven predictive  Lack of
(0.816) (0.764) (0.640) maintenance tool standardized
 Lack of  Lack of  Lack of real-time (0.642) systems for
infrastructure and coordination status of process  Lack of connectivity
automation among employees data (0.663) traceability (0.618)
(0.981) (0.631)  Lack of systems to  Lack of
 Lack of internal  Lack of digitization of identify products integration with
and external training/experience product/ process and components ERP and
collaboration on in emerging design data (0.670) information
digitization technologies (0.867)  Lack of cloud exchange among
(0.632) (0.756)  Lack of analytics services stakeholders
 Lack of  Lack of awareness digitization for (0.942) (0.626)
upgradation of regarding industry inbound/  Lack of security  Lack of trust
existing systems 4.0 (0.679) outbound in IT services among
(0.670) logistics (0.601) stakeholders
 Lack of financial operations (0.822) (0.743)
support (0.929)
Action: With the support of industry people from respondent SMEs serving as experts, the authors drew up
solutions regarding key issues (criteria and sub-criteria) involved in I4.0 implementation. Figure 4 presents the
decision sequence diagram with Industry 4.0 sustainability dimensions and solutions.
Industry 4.0 sustainability dimensions involve the SED- Sustainable economic development; PBE-
Profitable business environment; HRDI- Human resource business initiatives; RCE- Reduction of carbon
emission; ENS- Environmental sustainability; SESS- Socio-economic equality or social sustainability; SERU-
Sustainable energy and resource utilization; MCR- Manufacturing cost reduction; PPMP- Personalized product
and modular production environment; AFMS- Agile and flexible manufacturing system; NBM- New business
models; DSCN- Digital supply chain networks (Kumar and Sharma, 2024). These sustainability dimensions are
closely related with the proposed solutions. For example, developing digital strategy and action plan for
digitization (S1) and development of IT infrastructure (S2) leads to sustainable economic development (SED).
From an economic point of view, the digital transition allows businesses to identify and adopt environmentally
sustainable opportunities.
The proposed sustainable solutions underwent validation via a questionnaire survey involving active
participation from 51 respondents representing SMEs. A sample questionnaire outlining the solution dimensions
is provided in Table A2 in Appendix A. Respondents were tasked with evaluating the solution dimensions
influencing Industry 4.0 implementation in SMEs using a five-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree; 2-
disagree; 3-neutral; 4-agree; 5-strongly agree). Subsequently, the internal consistency (reliability) of the
questionnaire items was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, with a threshold value of 0.60 deemed

14
acceptable for factor reliability (Hair et al., 2010; Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). The analysis yielded a
satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.888, indicating strong reliability. The questionnaire, structured on a
five-point scale, ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Moreover, to enhance the resilience of the research methodology, a series of research hypotheses (both null
and alternative) were formulated and documented in Table A3 within Appendix A. The null hypothesis posited
no discernible relationship between variables X and Y, while the alternative hypothesis proposed the existence
of a relationship between X and Y. For example, H0: Developing digital strategy and action plan for digitization
(S1) has no relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation. H 1: Developing digital strategy and
action plan for digitization (S1) has some relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.

15
 Sub-criteria (Level 3) Level 4
Criteria (Level 2)
Goal
(Level 1) SF1: Lack of top management commitment Sustainability aspects I4.0 Sustainable Solutions
SF2: Lack of action plan for digitization
SF3: Lack of infrastructure and automation SED S1: Develop digital strategy and action plan for
Strategic Factor digitization.
(SF) SF4: Lack of internal and external collaboration on
digitization SED S2: Development of IT infrastructure and automation
SF5: Lack of upgradation of existing system S3: Strategic collaborations with internal and external
PBE
SF6: Lack of financial support partners
HRDI S4: Launching skill/ training program.
HR1: Lack of experience in project management
HR2: Lack of competence and appropriate skillset SED
Human Resource S5: Coordination among key stakeholders
HR3: lack of co-ordination among employees
(HR) S6: Management of internal processes considering
HR4: Lack of training/experience in emerging technologies RCE, ENS, SESS
digitization and integration
HR5: Lack of awareness regarding industry 4.0 SERU S7: Application of product data and information
management tool
Ranking
of P1: Lack of digitization for internal process management MCR S8: Use of real-time product/process data
solutions P2: Lack of digitization for external process management
PECR S9: Implement production/ order planning and
for Processes (P) P3: Lack of digitization of real-time status of process data
scheduling decision support.
Industry P4: Lack of digitization of product/ process design data
4.0 MCR S10: Implement data analytics for online monitoring
P5: Lack of digitization for inbound/ outbound logistics and maintenance.
adoption with operations
PPMP S11: Adopt traceability technologies to identify
T1: Lack of knowledge about principal technologies products and components.
T2: Lack of data-driven predictive maintenance tool AFMS S12: Leverage traditional manufacturing systems with
automated systems.
Technology (T) T3: Lack of traceability systems to identify products and
components. NBM S13: Develop integration of information systems
T4: Lack of cloud analytics services S14: Develop digitization for inbound/outbound
T5: Lack of security in IT services DSCN
*Note: SED- Sustainable economic
logistics with operations.
development; PBE- Profitable business
DI1: Lack of vertical coordination among various environment; HRDI- Human resource business initiatives; RCE- Reduction of
departments within organization carbon emission; ENS- Environmental sustainability; SESS- Socio-economic
DI2: Lack of horizontal coordination among firms equality or social sustainability; SERU- Sustainable energy and resource utilization;
Digital
DI3: Lack of standardized systems for connectivity MCR- Manufacturing cost reduction; PPMP- Personalized product and modular
Integration (DI)
DI4: Lack of integration with ERP and information production environment; AFMS- Agile and flexible manufacturing system; NBM-
exchange among stakeholders New business models; DSCN- Digital supply chain networks
DI5: Lack of trust among stakeholders
Figure 4: Decision sequence diagram with barriers and solutions

16
Further, non-parametric tests were employed to scrutinize nominal data collected from questionnaire responses
(Corder and Foreman, 2010). The chi-square goodness-of-fit test, χ2-test for independence, and Fisher’s exact
probability test emerged as prominent non-parametric statistical techniques. The χ2 goodness-of-fit test assesses
the concordance between observed sample proportions or frequencies and those anticipated in the population as
per the null hypothesis, particularly applicable in comparisons involving two or more categories. The χ2-test for
independence appraises the statistical linkage between two categories using empirical data. Likewise, the Fisher
exact test for independence determines the statistical association between two attributes while also providing the
level of association, with effect size quantified by the Phi coefficient. Phi coefficients range from 0 to 1, with
values of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 representing small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively (Cohen, 1988;
Corder and Foreman, 2010).
Table 6 exhibits the frequency of responses provided by respondents, while Table 7 elucidates the
statistical significance of test results pertaining to various hypotheses concerning the sustainability dimensions
of Industry 4.0. Notably, the Fisher exact test produced statistically significant outcomes across all dimensions.
Consequently, the null hypothesis, positing no correlation between a specific dimension and sustainable Industry
4.0 implementation in SMEs, was refuted. Conversely, the alternate hypothesis, which postulated a correlation
between a specific dimension and Industry 4.0 implementation, was upheld across all dimensions. The degree of
correlation was quantified through the effect size coefficient (Phi), with all dimension-related values surpassing
0.50, signifying a robust association between sustainability dimensions and Industry 4.0 implementation in
SMEs.
Table 6: Response count from respondents
Sr. Solution Association Total
no. Dimensions SD D N A SA (N)
1. S1
2 0 3 22 24 51
2. S2
1 1 12 24 13 51
3. S3
2 0 6 18 25 51
4. S4
0 1 13 18 19 51
5. S5
0 0 3 27 21 51
6. S6
2 2 2 23 22 51
7. S7
0 4 12 15 20 51
8. S8
0 2 9 20 20 51
9. S9
1 1 10 25 14 51
10. S10
1 1 8 16 25 51
11. S11
0 4 9 16 22 51
12. S12
0 1 13 18 19 51
13. S13
1 0 8 28 14 51
14. S14
0 2 5 25 19 51
As an illustration, the effect size (Phi) is 0.981 for the Strategic collaborations with internal and external
partners (S3) and 0.950 for Management of internal processes considering digitization and integration (S6).
Additionally, supporting evidence from the literature is reflected in references such as Müller et al. (2018); Bai
et al. (2020); Braccini and Margherita (2019); Cezarino et al. (2021); Hung and Chen (2023). Table 8 presents

17
Fisher's exact test results and symmetric measure phi for strategic collaborations with internal and external
partners (S3).
Table 7: Hypothesis testing results
Sr. Sustainable I4.0 Value Exact Phi Approximate Hypothesi
no. Solution significance significance s results
Dimensions
1. S1 I4.0I 23.24 0.000 0.861 0.000 Accept
2. S2 I4.0I 23.89 0.000 0.816 0.000 Accept
3. S3 I4.0I 31.92 0.000 0.981 0.000 Accept
4. S4 I4.0I 17.36 0.003 0.700 0.003 Accept
5. S5 I4.0I 21.29 0.001 0.708 0.000 Accept
6. S6 I4.0I 28.77 0.000 0.950 0.000 Accept
7. S7 I4.0I 13.90 0.040 0.584 0.043 Accept
8. S8 I4.0I 19.95 0.009 0.682 0.005 Accept
9. S9 I4.0I 21.31 0.001 0.812 0.000 Accept
10. S10 I4.0I 22.55 0.000 0.841 0.000 Accept
11. S11 I4.0I 16.44 0.031 0.596 0.034 Accept
12. S12 I4.0I 20.44 0.000 0.738 0.001 Accept
13. S13 I4.0I 13.44 0.027 0.622 0.020 Accept
14. S14 I4.0I 15.08 0.039 0.591 0.038 Accept
*Accepted confidence level is 95%, i.e., Less than or equal to 0.05 value of exact significance and approximate significance representing
that the alternate hypothesis is accepted.
Table 8: Strategic collaborations with internal and external partners (S3) results (Count, chi-square test
and symmetric test)
Association
Count Total (N)
SD D N A SA
Total 2 0 6 18 25 51
Asymptotic
Degree of Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Point
Chi-square tests Value Significanc
freedom (2-sided) (1-sided) Probability
e (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-square 47.06a 9 <.001 <.001
Likelihood ratio 37.74 9 <.001 <.001
Fisher’s exact test 30.92 <.001
Linear-by-linear
26.96b 1 <.001 <.001 <.001 0.000
association
N of valid cases 51
Symmetric Approximate Exact
Value
measures Significance Significance
Phi 0.981 <.001 <.001
Nominal by
Cramer’s
nominal 0.566 <.001 <.001
V
N of valid cases 51
a. 12 cells (75.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.16.
b. The standardized statistic is 5.193.
Phase II of the work aims to analyze the barriers using fuzzy AHP and phase III deals with the ranking of
proposed solutions using fuzzy TOPSIS approaches which makes use of fuzzy experts and fuzzy mathematics.

4.2 Phase II: Fuzzy AHP

As discussed in section 3 about the steps for applying fuzzy AHP, the authors have collected responses from the
experts. Responses were collected from respondents, including managers, engineers, academicians, industry
practitioners, etc. Table A1 in Appendix A shows the details of the respondents. The inputs were collected under
five categories: (i) Strategic factor (ii) Human resource (iii) Technology (iv) Process and (v) Digital integration
to determine the weight of each criterion.
Weight calculations for criteria and sub-criteria: The domain experts’ (Table A1 in Appendix A)
responses for conducting pair-wise comparisons of the five criteria and 26 sub-criteria are set by triangular
fuzzy number (TFN). Table 9 shows the fuzzy criteria comparison matrix among various criteria. Compared to

18
all I4.0 criteria, the strategic factors weights (0.267) more, followed by technology (0.257) and digital
integration (0.204). Table 10-14 provides fuzzy comparison matric among sub criteria of strategy, human
resource, process, technology, and digital integration respectively together with the weights that were derived
for each. Similarly for other criteria the weights were derived. Table 15 (column 5) provides the weights of
criteria and sub criteria. The weights are calculated using Chang's extent analysis (using equation 3.15).
Table 9: Fuzzy criteria comparison matrix
SF HR P T DI Normalized Rank
weight
SF (1, 1, 1) (5, 6, 7) (.33, .5, 1) (4, 5, 6) (.2, .25, .33) 0.26747 1
HR (.14, .16, .2) (1, 1, 1) (3, 4, 5) (.16, .2, .25) (2, 3, 4) 0.13369 5
P (1, 2, 3) (.2, .25, .33) (1, 1, 1) (.14, .16, .2) (4, 5, 6) 0.13603 4
T (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (5, 6, 7) (1, 1, 1) (.16, .2, .25) 0.25792 2
DI (3, 4, 5) (.25, .33, .5) (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (1, 1, 1) 0.20489 3

Table 10: Fuzzy comparison matrix for strategic factor (SF)

SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SF6 Normalized Rank
weight
SF1 (1, 1, 1) (4, 5, 6) (.25, .33, .5) (3, 4, 5) (.2, .25, .33) (5, 6, 7) 0.23909 2
SF2 (.16, .2, .25) (1, 1, 1) (.16, .2, .25) (3, 4, 5) (.125, .14, .16) (4, 5, 6) 0.10269 6
SF3 (2, 3, 4) (4, 5, 6) (1, 1, 1) (.14, .16, .2) (2, 3, 4) (.16, .2, .25) 0.15666 3
SF4 (.2, .25, .33) (.2, .25, .33) (5, 6, 7) (1, 1, 1) (2, 3, 4) (.14, .16, .2) 0.10705 5
SF5 (3, 4, 5) (6, 7, 8) (.25, .33, .5) (.25, .33, .5) (1, 1, 1) (3, 4, 5) 0.24056 1
SF6 (.14, .16, .2) (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (5, 6, 7) (.2, .25, .33) (1, 1, 1) 0.15395 4
Table 11: Fuzzy comparison matrix for human resource (HR)
HR1 HR2 HR3 HR4 HR5 Normalize Rank
d weight
HR1 (1, 1, 1) (5, 6, 7) (.33, .5, 1) (4, 5, 6) (.2, .25, .33) 0.21667 2
HR2 (.14, .16, .2) (1, 1, 1) (3, 4, 5) (.16, .2, .25) (2, 3, 4) 0.31653 1
HR3 (1, 2, 3) (.2, .25, .33) (1, 1, 1) (.14, .16, .2) (4, 5, 6) 0.16900 3
HR4 (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (5, 6, 7) (1, 1, 1) (.16, .2, .25) 0.12996 5
HR5 (3, 4, 5) (.25, .33, .5) (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (1, 1, 1) 0.16784 4
Table 12: Fuzzy comparison matrix for processes (P)
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 Normalized Rank
weight
P1 (1, 1, 1) (5, 6, 7) (.33, .5, 1) (4, 5, 6) (.2, .25, .33) 0.28424 1
P2 (.14, .16, .2) (1, 1, 1) (3, 4, 5) (.16, .2, .25) (2, 3, 4) 0.22868 2
P3 (1, 2, 3) (.2, .25, .33) (1, 1, 1) (.14, .16, .2) (4, 5, 6) 0.11400 5
P4 (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (5, 6, 7) (1, 1, 1) (.16, .2, .25) 0.14896 4
P5 (3, 4, 5) (.25, .33, .5) (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (1, 1, 1) 0.22412 3
Table 13: Fuzzy comparison matrix for technology (T)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Normalized Rank
weight
T1 (1, 1, 1) (5, 6, 7) (.33, .5, 1) (4, 5, 6) (.2, .25, .33) 0.22628 3
T2 (.14, .16, .2) (1, 1, 1) (3, 4, 5) (.16, .2, .25) (2, 3, 4) 0.24539 1
T3 (1, 2, 3) (.2, .25, .33) (1, 1, 1) (.14, .16, .2) (4, 5, 6) 0.09544 5
T4 (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (5, 6, 7) (1, 1, 1) (.16, .2, .25) 0.18833 4
T5 (3, 4, 5) (.25, .33, .5) (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (1, 1, 1) 0.24456 2
Table 14: Fuzzy comparison matrix for digital integration (DI)
DI1 DI2 DI3 DI4 DI5 Normalized Rank
weight
DI1 (1, 1, 1) (5, 6, 7) (.33, .5, 1) (4, 5, 6) (.2, .25, .33) 0.21649 2
DI2 (.14, .16, .2) (1, 1, 1) (3, 4, 5) (.16, .2, .25) (2, 3, 4) 0.17038 4

19
 DI3 (1, 2, 3) (.2, .25, .33) (1, 1, 1) (.14, .16, .2) (4, 5, 6) 0.24111 1
DI4 (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (5, 6, 7) (1, 1, 1) (.16, .2, .25) 0.15692 5
DI5 (3, 4, 5) (.25, .33, .5) (.16, .2, .25) (4, 5, 6) (1, 1, 1) 0.21510 3

To determine the fuzzy synthetic extent of the five criteria, we used Equation (3.10). Table 15 displays the
results of comparing criteria and sub-criteria in pairs. It demonstrates that the biggest priority for adoption to
industry 4.0 is strategic collaborations with internal and external partners.
Table 15: Weights of criteria/sub-criteria
Criteria Criteria weights Sub criteria Sub criteria weights Normalized weights Rank
Strategic factor 0.26747 SF1 0.23909 0.06395 2
SF2 0.10269 0.02747 20
SF3 0.15666 0.04190 11
SF4 0.10705 0.02863 19
SF5 0.24056 0.06434 1
SF6 0.15395 0.04118 12
Human resource 0.13369 HR1 0.21667 0.02897 18
HR2 0.31653 0.04232 10
HR3 0.16900 0.02259 22
HR4 0.12996 0.01737 25
HR5 0.16784 0.02244 23

Process 0.13603 P1 0.28424 0.03867 13

P2 0.22868 0.03111 16
P3 0.11400 0.01551 26
P4 0.14896 0.02026 24
P5 0.22412 0.03049 17

Technology 0.25792 T1 0.22628 0.05836 5

T2 0.24539 0.06329 3
T3 0.09544 0.02462 21
T4 0.18833 0.04857 7
T5 0.24456 0.06308 4

Digital integration 0.20489 DI1 0.21649 0.04436 8

DI2 0.17038 0.03491 14
DI3 0.24111 0.04940 6
DI4 0.15692 0.03215 15
DI5 0.21510 0.04407 9

4.3 Phase III: Fuzzy TOPSIS

Further, a fuzzy evaluation matrix is constructed within the triangular fuzzy number by assigning the linguistic
variables listed in Table 3. The linguistic variables were collected from the domain experts (Table A1 in
appendix shows the experts details). The development of this matrix involves making comparisons of the
solutions with the various barriers. In appendix A, Table 16 presents the linguistic rating of solutions by expert
01 that is used in conjunction with assigned TFN (Table 17). Due to space limitations, only one of the possible
expert assessment matrices in TFN is provided here. After that, Equation (3.16) is used to determine the
aggregate fuzzy weights of the solutions, and Table 18 displays these results. In the next step, a goal reduction
technique was utilized, and the normalization of the aggregate fuzzy matrix was accomplished by the utilization
of Equation (3.17), which is presented in Table 19. Further, by multiplying the weights of the sub criteria, a
fuzzy weighted matrix is generated (presented in Table 20). The study assigns fuzzy positive ideal solution
+ ¿¿ −¿¿
(FPIS) as v 1 = (0, 0, 0), and it assigns fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS) as v 1 = (1, 1, 1). After that,
Equation (3.22) and Equation (3.23) were used to calculate distance of each alternative, and Equation 3.24 is
used to obtain the coefficient of the closeness. All the fourteen solutions have been ranked, based on their CC i
values. Table 21 shows the final ranking of the solutions.

20
 Table 16: Solutions linguistic rating (Expert 1)
SF1 SF2 SF3 … … DI3 DI4 DI5
S1 M E M … … M L VL
S2 M H E … … L H M
S3 M L L … … L M H
… … … … … … … … …
… … … … … … … … …
S12 M H H … … H M M
S13 H M VH … … H E H
S14 L L H … … H L L

Table 17: Assigned triangular fuzzy number matrix (Expert 1)

SF1 SF2 SF3 … … DI3 DI4 DI5
S1 (3,4,5) (6,7,8) (3,4,5) … … (3,4,5) (2,3,4) (1,2,3)
S2 (3,4,5) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) … … (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (3,4,5)
S3 (3,4,5) (2,3,4) (2,3,4) … … (2,3,4) (3,4,5) (4,5,6)
… … … … … … … … …
… … … … … … … … …
S12 (3,4,5) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) … … (4,5,6) (3,4,5) (3,4,5)
S13 (4,5,6) (3,4,5) (5,6,7) … … (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (4,5,6)
S14 (2,3,4) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) … … (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (2,3,4)

Table 18: Aggregate fuzzy matrix

SF1 SF2 SF3 … … DI3 DI4 DI5
S1 (1,4.4,7) (1,4.8,8) (2,4.2,7) … … (2,4.3,8) (2,4.5,7) (1,3.7,7)
S2 (2,4.7,8) (3,4.9,7) (2,5.3,8) … … (2,4.3,8) (2,4.5,7) (2,3.7,8)
S3 (1,4.9,8) (1,4,6) (1,3.3,7) … … (1,4.1,8) (1,4.3,8) (2,5,8)
… … … … … … … … …
… … … … … … … … …
S12 (2,4.5,8) (2,5.1,8) (2,4.8,8) … … (2,4.7,7) (2,4.1,8) (1,3.8,6)
S13 (3,5.1,8) (3,4.9,7) (2,4.5,7) … … (2,4.4,7) (2,4.9,8) (2,4.4,8)
S14 (1,4.1,7) (2,4.2,7) (2,4.5,8) … … (2,4.4,7) (2,3.8,6) (1,3.5,6)

Table 19: Normalized fuzzy decision matrix

SF1 SF2 … DI4 DI5
S1 (.125,.55,.875) (.125,.208,1) … (.142,.222,.5) (.125,.462,.875)
S2 (.25,.587,1) (.142,.204,.333) … (.142,.222,.5) (.25,.462,1)
S3 (.125,.6125,1) (.167,.25,1) … (.125,.232,1) (.25,.625,1)
… … … … … …
… … … … … …
S12 (.25,.562,1) (.125,.196,.5) … (.125,.243,.5) (.125,.475,.75)
S13 (.375,.637,1) (.142,.204,.333) … (.125,.204,.5) (.25,.55,1)
S14 (.125,.512,.875) (.142,.238,.5) … (.166,.263,.5) (.125,.462,.75)

Table 20: Weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix

SF1
S1 (.000234,.026207,.140004)
S2 (.000467,.027993,.160004)
S3 (.000234,.029185,.160004)
… …
… …
S12 (.000467,.026802,.160004)
SF2 … DI5
(.000230,.006755,.118197) … (.000248,.018101,.125329)
(.000263,.006617,.039399) … (.000497,.018101,.143233)
(.000307,.008106,.118197) … (.000497,.024461,.143233)
… … …
… … …
(.000230,.006358,059099) … (.000248,.01859,.107425)

21
 S13 (.000701,.030376,.160004) (.000263,.006617,.039399) … (.000497,.021526,.143233)
S14 (.000234,.024420,.140004) (.000263,.007720,.059099) … (.000248,.018101,.107425)

Table 21: Final ranking of solutions

ID Solutions d+ d- CC i Ranking
S1 Develop digital strategy and action plan for digitization 0.167503 0.10557 0.386599 4
S2 Development of IT infrastructure and automation 0.192243 0.101909 0.346451 6
S3 Strategic collaborations with internal and external partners 0.111066 0.178362 0.616258 1
S4 Launching skill/ training program 0.179098 0.125305 0.411641 3
S5 Co-ordination among key stakeholders 0.138856 0.172334 0.553790 2
S6 Management of internal processes considering digitization and
0.209381 0.068941 0.247701 11
integration
S7 Application of product data and information management tool 0.226678 0.106836 0.320335 9
S8 Use of real-time product/process data 0.222617 0.071503 0.243107 12
S9 Implement production/ order planning and scheduling decision
0.2229 0.104713 0.319623 10
support
S10 Implement data analytics for online monitoring and maintenance 0.221897 0.110599 0.332634 8
S11 Adopt traceability technologies to identify products and
0.245773 0.078581 0.242269 13
components
S12 Leverage traditional manufacturing systems with automated
0.199603 0.063615 0.241681 14
systems
S13 Develop integration of information systems 0.211969 0.122687 0.366607 5
S14 Develop digitization for inbound/outbound logistics with
0.21509 0.111717 0.341843 7
operations

5. Results and discussion

In phase I, the use of SAP-LAP helps to synthesize the information with respect to various criteria, sub criteria
related to I4.0 implementation aspects in respondent SMEs. From the findings of SAP-LAP summarized in
Table 4, 5 and Figure 4. It is found that there are various processes (Strategy, human resource, process,
technology, and digital integration), which needs to be executed for successful I4.0 implementation in SMEs.
Table 4 presents the summary of excerpts of respondents with respect to various I4.0 implementation barriers.
Table 5 presents the key learning outcomes with respect to various barriers. For strategy, there are 6 barriers viz.
lack of top management commitment, lack of action plan for digitization, lack of infrastructure and automation,
lack of internal and external collaboration on digitization, lack of upgradation of existing systems, and lack of
financial support. Similarly, for human resources there are 5 barriers viz. lack of experience in project
management, lack of competence and appropriate skillset, lack of coordination among employees, lack of
training/experience in emerging technologies, lack of awareness regarding industry 4.0. There are a total of 26
barriers. Figure 4 presents the decision sequence suggested actions /solutions for each barrier. There are a total
of fourteen action/solutions. For example, develop digital strategy and action plan for digitization, development
of IT infrastructure and automation etc.
In phase II, fuzzy AHP is used to calculate the weights of each identified barriers to I4.0 implementation.
With the help of domain experts, the pair wise comparison of five criteria viz. strategy, human resource,
process, technology, and digital integration were accomplished. Normalized weights for each criterion were
calculated. Weights for various sub-criteria under each category are presented in Table 15. It is observed that
SF5, upgradation of existing systems has highest weight (0.0643) followed by SF1, top management
commitment (0.0639). In human resource category, HR2, competence and appropriate skillset has the highest
weight (0.0423) followed by HR1, Experience in project management (0.0289).
In phase III, all the fourteen solutions purposed in phase-1 are ranked using fuzzy TOPSIS. The weights
(obtained in phase I) were further used in fuzzy TOPSIS and is constructed as shown in Table 21. The
development of the matrix involves making comparison of solutions with barriers. The weighted normalized
fuzzy decision matrix was used to determine fuzzy positives and fuzzy negatives ideal solutions. Finally, the
distance from FNIS and FPIS are calculated to determine the closeness coefficient. All the 14 solutions are
ranked in descending order based on the closeness coefficient. The highest closeness coefficient value used to
rank the solutions for industry 4.0 adoption, reveals that solution S3, i.e., strategic collaborations with internal

22
and external partners, is the most important solution to overcome barriers, while solution S12 i.e. leverage
traditional manufacturing systems with automated systems, is the least important. Table 21 presents the ranking
of the solutions. Table 22 presents the contrast analysis on the basis of research methods, barriers, solutions,
limitations and recommendations of the proposed work with literature studies.

23
 Table 22: Contrast analysis
Sr.no. References Research Barriers Solutions Limitations Recommendation
methods used
1. Rauch et al., An explorative 14 barriers for Not provided  Statistical validation of the The authors recommended following barriers:
2019 field study using smart barriers is not presented. lack of acceptance of owners, managers and
SME workshop manufacturing  Stakeholder’s perception on employees, difficulties within the
dimensions is not analysed. implementation phase, lack of qualified staff,
 Barriers are not ranked. data security.
2. Majumdar et ISM and 14 barriers for Provided  Barriers are not ranked. The authors presented a Triple helix
al., 2021 MICMAC Industry 4.0  Comprehensive analysis using framework for overcoming Industry 4.0
analysis SAP-LAP is missing. barriers.
 Lacks ranking of solutions and
prioritization
3. Kumar et al., ISM and 10 barriers for I4.0 Not provided  No quantitative analysis The model indicates that "resistance to
2021 MICMAC adoption  Lacks ranking of barriers change" is at the topmost level, and "lack of
analysis infrastructure" at foundation level to Industry
4.0 adoption.
4. Vinodh and Interpretive 18 barriers for lean Not provided  Stakeholder’s perception on The authors recommended that lack of top
Shimray, ranking process manufacturing and dimensions is not analysed. management attitude, commitment and
2022 Industry 4.0 involvement are most dominant barriers.
5. Calabrese et Systematic 21 barriers Not provided  Stakeholder’s perception on Provided recommendations to managers, and
al., 2022 literature review dimensions is not analysed. suggestions for their Industry 4.0 initiatives.
 Factors are not ranked.
6. Pozzi et al., Case study 8 factors Not provided  Factors are not ranked. Recommended 7 success factors for
2023  Quantitative analysis is not successful I4.0 implementation.
present.

7. Proposed Applied 26 barriers to 14 solutions for Among 14 solutions first three solutions are:
integrated SAP- Industry 4.0 Industry 4.0 "strategic collaborations with internal and
LAP, fuzzy AHP, implementation implementation external partners, "coordination among key
fuzzy TOPSIS stakeholders and "Launching skill/ training
approach program.

24
6. Conclusion
The key aspect of this study is that it uses a mixed method approach to analyze and model the sustainable I4.0
solutions. This not only enhances the existing industry 4.0 knowledge in literature, but it also helps stakeholders
to act upon the potential sustainable solution dimensions that could help them succeed in industry 4.0
implementation projects. In the study, the authors developed an integrated methodology framework to find the
connection between criteria for the successful implementation of I4.0. In phase-I, SAP-LAP approach is used to
find and analyze different industry 4.0 criteria such as strategy, human resource, process, technology, and digital
integration in SMEs on the basis of participant observation and interviews. SAP analysis has investigated the
"I4.0 implementation in SMEs." It asks the several "players," or stakeholders, about their big-picture views,
skills, and roles in the industry 4.0 implementation. Also, LAP analysis is done to synthesize information from
SAP interplay. Based on the important learnings from the SAP-LAP, the indicators were put into five groups
called "criteria." The theoretical framework has five major categories of industry 4.0 enablers, with 26
subcategories and 14 actions/solutions. In phase-II, the authors used fuzzy AHP for obtaining weights for the
barriers identified in phase I. Fuzzy AHP was used to determine how significant the barriers are. In phase III the
authors have applied the fuzzy TOPSIS for ranking and prioritizing the 14 sustainable solutions identified in
Phase I.
Given the difficulty of simultaneously implementing all possible actions, it is preferable to prioritize the
solutions that have the best chance of being implemented effectively and so allowing the solutions to be focused
on. Fuzzy TOPSIS was used for ranking the solutions to overcome the barriers. Strategic collaborations with
both internal and external partners were shown to be the most effective solution for implementing industry 4.0,
with a closeness coefficient of 0.616, followed by co-ordination among key stakeholders, with a closeness
coefficient of 0.553. Strategic collaborations with both internal and external partners for Industry 4.0
implementation involve carefully planning and executing partnerships that are designed to benefit all partners
involved. These collaborations typically involve clearly defined objectives, a shared vision, and well-defined
roles and responsibilities. Such collaborations can help to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and drive innovation
by leveraging the strengths and resources of all partners.
In this study proposed solutions are provided for pharmaceutical, automobile, machinery and equipment
sectors. Further studies may explore the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. As the study provides two
topmost effective solutions viz. (i) strategic collaborations with both external and internal partners, (ii) co-
ordination among key stakeholders for industry 4.0 implementation. The solution one may further be explored
and examined with respect to the specific factors that contribute towards strategic collaboration. Also, work can
be extended to develop co-ordination mechanisms among the stakeholders viz. managers, employees, suppliers,
and customers with respect to solution two.

References
Andriushchenko, K., Rudyk, V., Riabchenko, O., Kachynska, M., Marynenko, N., Shergina, L., & Kuchai, O.
(2019). Processes of managing information infrastructure of a digital enterprise in the framework of the
Industry 4.0 concept. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 1(3), 60-72.
Ardito, L., Petruzzelli, A.M., Panniello, U. and Garavelli, A.C. (2019), "Towards Industry 4.0: Mapping digital
technologies for supply chain management-marketing integration", Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 323-346. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-04-2017-0088
Autenrieth, P., Lörcher, C., Pfeiffer, C., Winkens, T., & Martin, L. (2018, June). Current significance of IT-
infrastructure enabling industry 4.0 in large companies. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on
Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Bag, S., Gupta, S., & Kumar, S. (2021). Industry 4.0 adoption and 10R advance manufacturing capabilities for
sustainable development. International journal of production economics, 231, 107844.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107844.
Bajic, B., Rikalovic, A., Suzic, N., & Piuri, V. (2020). Industry 4.0 implementation challenges and
opportunities: A managerial perspective. IEEE Systems Journal, 15(1), 546-559.
Barrane, F.Z., Ndubisi, N.O., Kamble, S., Karuranga, G.E. and Poulin, D. (2021), "Building trust in multi-
stakeholder collaborations for new product development in the digital transformation era", Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 205-228. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2020-0164

25
Beliatis, M. J., Jensen, K., Ellegaard, L., Aagaard, A., & Presser, M. (2021). Next generation industrial IoT
digitalization for traceability in metal manufacturing industry: A case study of industry 4.0. Electronics,
10(5), 628.
Benešová, A., Hirman, M., Steiner, F., & Tupa, J. (2019). Determination of changes in process management
within industry 4.0. Procedia manufacturing, 38, 1691-1696.
Bibby, L., & Dehe, B. (2018). Defining and assessing industry 4.0 maturity levels–case of the defence sector.
Production Planning & Control, 29(12), 1030-1043.
Bortolini, M., Faccio, M., Galizia, F. G., Gamberi, M., & Pilati, F. (2021). Adaptive automation assembly
systems in the industry 4.0 era: a reference framework and full–scale prototype. Applied Sciences, 11(3),
1256.
Bougdira, A., Akharraz, I., & Ahaitouf, A. (2020). A traceability proposal for industry 4.0. Journal of Ambient
Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 11(8), 3355-3369.
Caiado, R. G. G., Scavarda, L. F., Gavião, L. O., Ivson, P., de Mattos Nascimento, D. L., & Garza-Reyes, J. A.
(2021). A fuzzy rule-based industry 4.0 maturity model for operations and supply chain management.
International Journal of Production Economics, 231, 107883.
Calabrese, A., Dora, M., Levialdi Ghiron, N., & Tiburzi, L. (2022). Industry’s 4.0 transformation process: how
to start, where to aim, what to be aware of. Production Planning & Control, 33(5), 492-512.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Fornasiero, R., Ramezani, J., & Ferrada, F. (2019). Collaborative networks: A pillar
of digital transformation. Applied Sciences, 9(24), 5431.
Carnero, M. C. (2014). Multicriteria model for maintenance benchmarking. Journal of manufacturing systems,
33(2), 303-321.
Castelo-Branco, I., Cruz-Jesus, F., & Oliveira, T. (2019). Assessing Industry 4.0 readiness in manufacturing:
Evidence for the European Union. Computers in Industry, 107, 22-32.
Chauhan, G., & Singh, T. P. (2013). Resource flexibility for lean manufacturing: SAP-LAP analysis of a case
study. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 4(4), 370-388.
Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., Sethi, S. P., & Sokolov, B. (2019). Scheduling in production, supply chain and Industry
4.0 systems by optimal control: fundamentals, state-of-the-art and applications. International Journal of
Production Research, 57(2), 411-432.
Dolgui, A., Sgarbossa, F., & Simonetto, M. (2022). Design and management of assembly systems 4.0:
systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Production Research, 60(1), 184-
210.
Duan, L., & Da Xu, L. (2021). Data analytics in industry 4.0: A survey. Information Systems Frontiers, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10190-0
Dutta, G., Kumar, R., Sindhwani, R., & Singh, R. K. (2021). Digitalization priorities of quality control
processes for SMEs: A conceptual study in perspective of Industry 4.0 adoption. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 32(6), 1679-1698.
Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M. A., & Damian, D. (2008). Selecting empirical methods for software
engineering research. Guide to advanced empirical software engineering, 285-311.
Elhusseiny, H. M., & Crispim, J. (2022). SMEs, Barriers and Opportunities on adopting Industry 4.0: A Review.
Procedia Computer Science, 196, 864-871.
Enrique, D. V., Marodin, G. A., Santos, F. B. C., & Frank, A. G. (2023). Implementing industry 4.0 for
flexibility, quality, and productivity improvement: technology arrangements for different purposes.
International Journal of Production Research, 61(20), 7001-7026.
Fatorachian, H., & Kazemi, H. (2018). A critical investigation of Industry 4.0 in manufacturing: theoretical
operationalisation framework. Production Planning & Control, 29(8), 633-644.
Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. (2019). Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in
manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 210, 15-26.
Galati, F., & Bigliardi, B. (2019). Industry 4.0: Emerging themes and future research avenues using a text
mining approach. Computers in Industry, 109, 100-113.
Gaspar, M., & Julião, J. (2021, January). Impacts of industry 4.0 on operations management: challenges for
operations strategy. In 2021 The 8th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications
(Europe) (pp. 57-61).

26
Ghobakhloo, M. (2018), "The future of manufacturing industry: a strategic roadmap toward Industry 4.0",
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 910-936.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-02-2018-0057
Ghobakhloo, M., & Iranmanesh, M. (2021). Digital transformation success under Industry 4.0: A strategic
guideline for manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(8), 1533-1556.
Ghobakhloo, M., Fathi, M., Iranmanesh, M., Maroufkhani, P., & Morales, M. E. (2021). Industry 4.0 ten years
on: A bibliometric and systematic review of concepts, sustainability value drivers, and success
determinants. Journal of Cleaner Production, 302, 127052.
Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Vilkas, M., Grybauskas, A. and Amran, A. (2022), "Drivers and barriers of
Industry 4.0 technology adoption among manufacturing SMEs: a systematic review and transformation
roadmap", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1029-1058.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2021-0505
Gobble, M. M. (2018). Digital strategy and digital transformation. Research-Technology Management, 61(5),
66-71.
Gökalp, E., & Martinez, V. (2022). Digital transformation maturity assessment: development of the digital
transformation capability maturity model. International Journal of Production Research, 60(20), 6282-
6302.
Grzybowska, K., & Łupicka, A. (2017). Key competencies for Industry 4.0. Economics & Management
Innovations, 1(1), 250-253.
Gu, F., Guo, J., Hall, P., & Gu, X. (2019). An integrated architecture for implementing extended producer
responsibility in the context of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Production Research, 57(5), 1458-
1477.
Hacioglu, U., & Sevgilioglu, G. (2019). The evolving role of automated systems and its cyber-security issue for
global business operations in Industry 4.0. International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy (2687-
2293), 1(1), 01–11. https://doi.org/10.36096/ijbes.v1i1.105
Haricha, K., Khiat, A., Issaoui, Y., Bahnasse, A., & Ouajji, H. (2023). Recent technological progress to
empower Smart Manufacturing: Review and Potential Guidelines. IEEE Access. vol. 11, pp. 77929-77951,
2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3246029.
Ho, W. R., Tsolakis, N., Dawes, T., Dora, M., & Kumar, M. (2022). A Digital Strategy Development
Framework for Supply Chains. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. doi:
10.1109/TEM.2021.3131605.
Hwang, CL., Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: Multiple Attribute
Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 186. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3.
Islam, M. A. (2022). Industry 4.0: Skill set for employability. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 6(1),
100280.
Issa, A., Hatiboglu, B., Bildstein, A., & Bauernhansl, T. (2018). Industrie 4.0 roadmap: Framework for digital
transformation based on the concepts of capability maturity and alignment. Procedia Cirp, 72, 973-978.
Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., Dolgui, A. (2020). Introduction to Scheduling in Industry 4.0 and Cloud Manufacturing
Systems. In: Sokolov, B., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A. (eds) Scheduling in Industry 4.0 and Cloud
Manufacturing. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 289. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43177-8_1
Iyer, A. (2018). Moving from Industry 2.0 to Industry 4.0: A case study from India on leapfrogging in smart
manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing, 21, 663-670.
Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A., & Dhone, N. C. (2020). Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing practices for
sustainable organisational performance in Indian manufacturing companies. International Journal of
Production Research, 58(5), 1319-1337.
Kazancoglu, Y. and Ozkan-Ozen, Y.D. (2018), "Analyzing Workforce 4.0 in the Fourth Industrial Revolution
and proposing a road map from operations management perspective with fuzzy DEMATEL", Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 891-907. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2017-
0015

27
Khanzode, A. G., Sarma, P. R. S., Mangla, S. K., & Yuan, H. (2021). Modeling the Industry 4.0 adoption for
sustainable production in Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279,
123489.
Kumar, P., Bhamu, J. and Sangwan, K.S. (2021), “Analysis of barriers to Industry 4.0 adoption in
manufacturing organizations: an ISM approach”, 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Vol.
98, pp. 85-90.
Lazarova‐Molnar, S., Mohamed, N., & Al‐Jaroodi, J. (2019). Data analytics framework for industry 4.0:
enabling collaboration for added benefits. IET Collaborative Intelligent Manufacturing, 1(4), 117-125.
Lunneborg, C. E. (2007). Convenience sample. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosc131
Luo, D., Thevenin, S., & Dolgui, A. (2022). A state-of-the-art on production planning in Industry 4.0.
International Journal of Production Research, 1-31.
Luthra, S., & Mangla, S. K. (2018). Evaluating challenges to Industry 4.0 initiatives for supply chain
sustainability in emerging economies. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 117, 168-179.
Luthra, S., Garg, D., & Haleem, A. (2014). Greening the supply chain using SAP-LAP analysis: a case study of
an auto ancillary company in India. International Journal of Business Excellence, 7(6), 724-746.
Majumdar, A., Garg, H., & Jain, R. (2021). Managing the barriers of Industry 4.0 adoption and implementation
in textile and clothing industry: Interpretive structural model and triple helix framework. Computers in
Industry, 125, 103372.
McCutcheon, D. M., & Meredith, J. R. (1993). Conducting case study research in operations management.
Journal of operations management, 11(3), 239-256.
Mittal, S., Khan, M. A., Purohit, J. K., Menon, K., Romero, D., & Wuest, T. (2020). A smart manufacturing
adoption framework for SMEs. International Journal of Production Research, 58(5), 1555-1573.
Moeuf, A., Lamouri, S., Pellerin, R., Tamayo-Giraldo, S., Tobon-Valencia, E., & Eburdy, R. (2020).
Identification of critical success factors, risks and opportunities of Industry 4.0 in SMEs. International
Journal of Production Research, 58(5), 1384-1400.
Moeuf, A., Pellerin, R., Lamouri, S., Tamayo-Giraldo, S., & Barbaray, R. (2018). The industrial management of
SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0. International journal of production research, 56(3), 1118-1136.
Nayernia, H., Bahemia, H., & Papagiannidis, S. (2022). A systematic review of the implementation of industry
4.0 from the organisational perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 60(14), 4365-4396.
Ng, T. C., Lau, S. Y., Ghobakhloo, M., Fathi, M., & Liang, M. S. (2022). The Application of Industry 4.0
Technological Constituents for Sustainable Manufacturing: A Content-Centric Review. Sustainability,
14(7), 4327.
Nimawat, D., & Gidwani, B. D. (2023). An initial survey on the readiness of Industry 4.0 adoption in the
manufacturing industries. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 129(3),
1613-1630.
Oluyisola, O. E., Bhalla, S., Sgarbossa, F., & Strandhagen, J. O. (2022). Designing and developing smart
production planning and control systems in the industry 4.0 era: a methodology and case study. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, 33(1), 311-332.
Pacchini, A. P. T., Lucato, W. C., Facchini, F., & Mummolo, G. (2019). The degree of readiness for the
implementation of Industry 4.0. Computers in Industry, 113, 103125.
Parente, M., Figueira, G., Amorim, P., & Marques, A. (2020). Production scheduling in the context of Industry
4.0: review and trends. International Journal of Production Research, 58(17), 5401-5431.
Parhi, S., Joshi, K., Wuest, T., & Akarte, M. (2022). Factors affecting Industry 4.0 adoption–A hybrid SEM-
ANN approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 168, 108062.
Patil, S. K., & Kant, R. (2014). A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge
Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert systems with applications, 41(2),
679-693.
Phuyal, S., Bista, D., & Bista, R. (2020). Challenges, opportunities and future directions of smart
manufacturing: a state of art review. Sustainable Futures, 2, 100023.
Pietrewicz, L. (2020). Co-ordination in the Age of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Management Science
and Business Administration, 6(2), 24-32.

28
Pirola, F., Cimini, C. and Pinto, R. (2020), "Digital readiness assessment of Italian SMEs: a case-study
research", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1045-1083.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-09-2018-0305
Pozzi, R., Rossi, T., & Secchi, R. (2023). Industry 4.0 technologies: Critical success factors for implementation
and improvements in manufacturing companies. Production Planning & Control, 34(2), 139-158.
Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of
reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. Journal of Manufacturing
Systems, 37, 599-615.
Raj, A., Dwivedi, G., Sharma, A., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., & Rajak, S. (2020). Barriers to the adoption of
industry 4.0 technologies in the manufacturing sector: An inter-country comparative perspective.
International Journal of Production Economics, 224, 107546
Rauch, E., Dallasega, P., & Unterhofer, M. (2019). Requirements and barriers for introducing smart
manufacturing in small and medium-sized enterprises. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 47(3), 87-
94.
Rikalovic, A., Suzic, N., Bajic, B., & Piuri, V. (2021). Industry 4.0 implementation challenges and
opportunities: A technological perspective. IEEE Systems Journal, 16(2), 2797-2810.
Saabye, H., Kristensen, T.B. and Wæhrens, B.V. (2022), "Developing a learning-to-learn capability: insights on
conditions for Industry 4.0 adoption", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.
42 No. 13, pp. 25-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2021-0428
Sahoo, S., & Lo, C. Y. (2022). Smart manufacturing powered by recent technological advancements: A review.
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 64, 236-250.
Sanchez, M., Exposito, E., & Aguilar, J. (2020). Industry 4.0: survey from a system integration perspective.
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 33(10-11), 1017-1041.
Schallock, B., Rybski, C., Jochem, R., & Kohl, H. (2018). Learning Factory for Industry 4.0 to provide future
skills beyond technical training. Procedia manufacturing, 23, 27-32.
Schumacher, A., Erol, S., & Sihn, W. (2016). A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness and
maturity of manufacturing enterprises. Procedia Cirp, 52, 161-166.
Shet, S. V., & Pereira, V. (2021). Proposed managerial competencies for Industry 4.0–Implications for social
sustainability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121080.
Shukla, M., & Shankar, R. (2023). Readiness assessment for smart manufacturing system implementation:
multiple case of Indian small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing. DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2023.2228268
Soni, V., Singh, S.P. and Banwet, D.K. (2016), "“Systematic inquiry for energy security and sustainability” (a
case study approach for India using SAP-LAP framework)", Journal of Advances in Management
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 352-367. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-08-2015-0059
Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2020). Critical factors for the successful implementation of Industry 4.0: a review and
future research direction. Production Planning & Control, 31(10), 799-815.
Sorkun, M.F. (2020). Digitalization in Logistics Operations and Industry 4.0: Understanding the Linkages with
Buzzwords. In: Hacioglu, U. (eds) Digital Business Strategies in Blockchain Ecosystems. Contributions to
Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29739-8_9
Sushil (2000), "SAP‐LAP models of inquiry", Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 347-353.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740010340526
Tabim, V. M., Ayala, N. F., & Frank, A. G. (2021). Implementing vertical integration in the industry 4.0
journey: which factors influence the process of information systems adoption?. Information Systems
Frontiers, 1-18.
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2008). Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) of IT ‐enablers for
Indian manufacturing SMEs. Information Management & Computer Security, 16(2), 113-136.
Tortorella, G.L., Giglio, R. and van Dun, D.H. (2019), "Industry 4.0 adoption as a moderator of the impact of
lean production practices on operational performance improvement", International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 39 No. 6/7/8, pp. 860-886. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2019-0005

29
van Dun, D.H. and Kumar, M. (2023), "Social enablers of Industry 4.0 technology adoption: transformational
leadership and emotional intelligence", International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 43 No. 13, pp. 152-182. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2022-0370
Varthanan, P. A., Murugan, N., & Kumar, G. M. (2013). An AHP based heuristic DPSO algorithm for
generating multi criteria production–distribution plan. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 32(4), 632-647.
Veile, J.W., Kiel, D., Müller, J.M. and Voigt, K.-I. (2020), "Lessons learned from Industry 4.0 implementation
in the German manufacturing industry", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 31 No.
5, pp. 977-997. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0270
Verma, P., Dixit, V., & Kushwaha, J. (2020, March). Risk and resilience analysis for industry 4.0 in achieving
the goals of smart logistics: An overview. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Operations Management (pp. 10-12).
Villa, A., & Taurino, T. (2018). From industrial districts to SME collaboration frames. International Journal of
Production Research, 56(1-2), 974-982.
Vinodh, S. and Shimray, S.A. (2022), "Analysis of barriers for implementation of integrated Lean Six Sigma
and Industry 4.0 using interpretive ranking process", The TQM Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-
print. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-04-2022-0121
Volberda, H. W., Khanagha, S., Baden-Fuller, C., Mihalache, O. R., & Birkinshaw, J. (2021). Strategizing in a
digital world: Overcoming cognitive barriers, reconfiguring routines and introducing new organizational
forms. Long Range Planning, 54(5), 102110.
Von Stietencron, M., Hribernik, K., Lepenioti, K., Bousdekis, A., Lewandowski, M., Apostolou, D., & Mentzas,
G. (2022). Towards logistics 4.0: an edge-cloud software framework for big data analytics in logistics
processes. International Journal of Production Research, 60(19), 5994-6012.
Warner, K. S., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing
process of strategic renewal. Long range planning, 52(3), 326-349.
Winkelhaus, S., & Grosse, E. H. (2020). Logistics 4.0: a systematic review towards a new logistics system.
International Journal of Production Research, 58(1), 18-43.

30
Appendix-A

Table A1: Respondents’ details

Respondents’ Qualification Experience Role Interview mode Industry Category of
IDs (Years) company
E01 Graduate 0-5 Process manager Face to face Pharmaceuticals SME
E02 Graduate 6-10 Quality manager Face to face Automobiles, High-precision drill manufacture SME
E03 Postgraduate 0-5 Mechanical Design Engineer Telephonic Machinery and equipment SME
E04 Graduate 6-10 Senior manager Face to face Agriculture and allied SME
E05 Graduate 6-10 Engineer Telephonic Automobile SME
E06 Graduate 6-10 Industry associate Telephonic Automobile SME
E07 Graduate 11-15 Operations Manager Telephonic Machinery and equipment SME
E08 Graduate 6-10 Operations Manager Online Pharmaceutical SME
E09 Graduate 0-5 Engineer Telephonic Automobile, service SME
E10 Postgraduate 11-15 Specialist (Manufacturing) Telephonic Manufacturing SME
E11 Graduate 6-10 Engineer Online Automobiles, Machinery, and equipment SME
E12 Postgraduate 0-5 Operation manager Online Machinery and equipment SME
E13 Graduate 0-5 Supervisor Online Automobiles SME
E14 Postgraduate 0-5 Senior Design Engineer Online Agriculture and allied industries SME
E15 Postgraduate 0-5 Process manager Online Machinery and equipment SME
E16 Graduate 0-5 Graduate trainee engineer Online Automobile SME
E17 Postgraduate 0-5 Program Coordinator Online Agriculture and allied SME
E18 Graduate 6-10 Deputy Manager Online Pharmaceutical SME
E19 Graduate 0-5 Service Engineer Online Machinery and equipment SME
E20 Graduate 6-10 Se. Engineer Online Automobiles, Railway and metro and other projects SME

31
 Table A2: Sample questionnaire
Respondent name:
Email:
Organization name:
Job position:
Work experience (In years):
Please rate the following questions on the given scale (1 to 5); 1= Strongly disagree (SD); 2= Disagree (D); 3=
Neutral (N); 4= Agree (A); 5= Strongly agree (SA)
Note: Tick () the appropriate option representing the solution dimensions which are associated with
sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation
Develop digital strategy and action plan for digitization (S1) 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
Development of IT infrastructure and automation (S2) 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
Strategic collaborations with internal and external partners (S3) 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
Launching skill/ training program (S4) 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
Co-ordination among key stakeholders (S5) 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
Management of internal processes considering digitization and 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
integration (S6)
Application of product data and information management tool (S7) 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
Use of real-time product/process data (S8) 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
Implement production/ order planning and scheduling decision 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
support (S9)
Implement data analytics for online monitoring and maintenance 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
(S10)
Adopt traceability technologies to identify products and 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
components (S11)
Leverage traditional manufacturing systems with automated 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
systems (S12)
Develop integration of information systems (S13) 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
Develop digitization for inbound/outbound logistics with operations 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 
(S14)

Table A3: Hypothesis formulation

ID Hypotheses
H1 Null: Developing digital strategy and action plan for digitization (S1) has no relationship with sustainable
Industry 4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Developing digital strategy and action plan for digitization (S1) has some relationship with
sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
H2 Null: Development of IT infrastructure and automation (S2) have no relationship with sustainable Industry
4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Development of IT infrastructure and automation (S2) have some relationship with sustainable
Industry 4.0 implementation.
H3 Null: Strategic collaborations with internal and external partners (S3) have no relationship with
sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Strategic collaborations with internal and external partners (S3) have some relationship with
sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
H4 Null: Launching skill/ training program (S4) has no relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0
implementation.
Alternate: Launching skill/ training program (S4) has some relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0
implementation.
H5 Null: Co-ordination among key stakeholders (S5) has no relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0
implementation.
Alternate: Co-ordination among key stakeholders (S5) has some relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0
implementation.

32
H6 Null: Management of internal processes considering digitization and integration (S6) has no relationship
with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Management of internal processes considering digitization and integration (S6) has some
relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
H7 Null: Application of product data and information management tool (S7) has no relationship with
sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Application of product data and information management tool (S7) has some relationship with
sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
H8 Null: Using real-time product/process data (S8) has no relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0
implementation.
Alternate: Using real-time product/process data (S8) has some relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0
implementation.
H9 Null: Implementing production/ order planning and scheduling decision support (S9) have no relationship
with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Implementing production/ order planning and scheduling decision support (S9) have some
relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
H10 Null: Implementing data analytics for online monitoring and maintenance (S10) have no relationship with
sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Implement data analytics for online monitoring and maintenance (S10) have some relationship
with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
H11 Null: Adopting traceability technologies to identify products and components (S11) has no relationship
with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Adopting traceability technologies to identify products and components (S11) has some
relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
H12 Null: Leveraging traditional manufacturing systems with automated systems (S12) has no relationship
with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Leveraging traditional manufacturing systems with automated systems (S12) has some
relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
H13 Null: Developing integration of information systems (S13) have no relationship with sustainable Industry
4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Developing integration of information systems (S13) have some relationship with sustainable
Industry 4.0 implementation.
H14 Null: Developing digitization for inbound/outbound logistics with operations (S14) have no relationship
with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.
Alternate: Developing digitization for inbound/outbound logistics with operations (S14) have some
relationship with sustainable Industry 4.0 implementation.

33