Identification of barriers in implantation of IoT in the Indian

agriculture sector
A Thesis submitted

In partial fulfilment of the requirement forthe award

of the degree

Of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

In

Production Engineering

by

Satyam Bhardwaj
(Reg. No. 2020PR17)

Under the Supervision of

Dr. Manish Gupta

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad
Prayagraj - 211004
July 2022
 UNDERTAKING

I, Satyam Bhardwaj, hereby put up the thesis, as approved by the thesis supervisor Dr. Manish

Gupta, Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Motilal Nehru Institute

of Technology Allahabad. I hereby declare that the presented work in this thesis of the title

“Identification of barriers in the implementation of IoT in the Indian agriculture sector”

is a genuine work achieved by me in the course of August 2021 – July 2022. I have carefully

read and understood the Institute’s guidelines and rules referring to the thesis, inventions,

innovations, and other work and agree to be bound by them. I additionally state that, to the best

of my knowledge and belief, this work has now no longer been submitted in advance for the

award of some other degree. In case, if this undertaking is found inappropriate and achieved

via, I accept that my degree may be unconditionally withdrawn.

Date: Satyam Bhardwaj

Place: Prayagraj 2020PR17

 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad
Prayagraj - 211004
(India)

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Identification of barriers in implementation

of IoT in the Indian agriculture sector”, submitted by Mr. Satyam Bhardwaj in partial

fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master of Technology in

Production Engineering to Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad,

Prayagraj India is a record of student’s own work carried out under our supervision and

guidance.

To the best of my knowledge, neither a partial nor a complete copy of this thesis has ever been

submitted to another university or academic organization for the purpose of conferring a degree.

It is further recognized that by signing this certificate, the undersigned does not support or agree

with any assertion made, viewpoint stated, or conclusion drawn therein, but rather merely approves

the thesis for the submission purpose

Date: Manish Gupta

Place: Prayagraj (Associate Professor)
Department of Mechanical Engineering
MNNIT Allahabad
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The present work will remain incomplete If I do not express my gratitude to a number of people

who joyfully assisted me in the completion of this work.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Manish Gupta, Associate Professor

in the Mechanical Engineering Department at the Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology

(MNNIT) in Allahabad, for his guidance in writing this report and for sharing his wisdom,

experiences, and insight with me throughout the process. I am incredibly appreciative of all the

information he has provided me.

Additionally, I appreciate the help and advice I received from Dr. N. R. Rawal of Civil

engineering department, MNNIT and Prof. Rakesh Narain & Prof. A. K. Dubey of Mechanical

Engineering Department, MNNIT, respectively. I'd want to thank my friends, fellow classmates,

seniors, and juniors for their assistance with this thesis paper.

I would like to thank Prof. K. N. Pandey, Professor and Head of the Mechanical

Engineering Department at MNNIT, Allahabad, for his assistance in helping me complete this

study.

My sincere gratitude is out to Prof. R. S. Verma, Director of MNNIT Allahabad.

I want to express my gratitude to the Ministry of Human Resource and Development

for providing me with a scholarship, which allowed me to successfully complete my thesis.

Without the scholarship, it would have been challenging for me to effectively pursue post-

graduation.

Finally, I want to thank my parents for their unwavering and generous support of my

M.Tech. Studies and professional aspirations.

Date: Satyam Bhardwaj

Place: Prayagraj

IV
 ABSTRACT

With increasing population and declining workforce, the Indian agriculture sector is facing a downfall in

terms of productivity. To increase the declining productivity, adaptation of automation technologies i.e.

IoT, cloud computing etc. are must. In recent times IoT (Internet of things) has made its impact on every

major industry. The global Agriculture sector is already incorporating smart methods to improve

productivity, reduce waste and control overall management of farming related tasks. But India is far

behind from nationwide implementation of these smart technologies, this is due to the presence of various

challenges. This study's objective is to determine the implementation barriers and the contextual

interactions among them in the order of importance. In this study, barriers are identified through literature

reviews and expert opinion and the methodology selected for this is a combined ISM-DEMATEL

approach.

V
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page No.

Undertaking ................................................................................................................................. II

Certificate.................................................................................................................................... III

Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................................ IV

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. V

Contents ...................................................................................................................................... VI

List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................VIII

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... IX

List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................... X

Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-2

Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 3-6

2.1 IoT in the Indian Agriculture sector ................................................................................... 4

2.2 Barrier Identification .......................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 3: Methodology .......................................................................................................... 7-17

3.1 ISM.............................................................................................................................. 13-15

3.1.1 Factor Classification .......................................................................................... 14-15

3.2 DEMATEL…………………………………………………………………………..15-17

VI
Chapter 4: Results ................................................................................................................. 18-20

Chapter 5: Discussion ........................................................................................................... ….21

Chapter 6: Conclusion .......................................................................................................... ….23

Chapter 7: Limitation & Future Scope ...................................................................................... 24

VII
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. ISM-DEMATEL framework ...............................................................................................................................7

Figure 2. MICMAC analysis ..............................................................................................................................................13

Figure 3. ISM model ..........................................................................................................................................................18

Figure 4. Cause effect diagram ..........................................................................................................................................19

VIII
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Barriers and their notation ......................................................................................................................................8

Table 2. SSIM matrix ...........................................................................................................................................................9

Table 3. Reachability matrix ................................................................................................................................................9

Table 4. Final Reachability matrix .....................................................................................................................................10

Table 5. Iteration_01 ..........................................................................................................................................................11

Table 6. Iteration_02 ..........................................................................................................................................................11

Table 7. Iteration_03 ..........................................................................................................................................................11

Table 8. Iteration_04 ..........................................................................................................................................................12

Table 9. Iteration_05 ..........................................................................................................................................................12

Table 10. Iteration_06 ........................................................................................................................................................12

Table 11. Direct Relationship matrix .................................................................................................................................14

Table 12. Normalize Matrix ...............................................................................................................................................15

Table 13. Total Relationship matrix ...................................................................................................................................16

Table 14. IRM ....................................................................................................................................................................16

Table 16. Result validation ................................................................................................................................................20

Table 15. Result Validation by comparing with past research ...........................................................................................21

IX
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ISM Interpretive structural modelling

DEMATEL Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory

IoT Internet of Thing

GDP Gross Domestic Product

DRM Direct Relation Matrix

NM Normalize Matrix

TRM Total Relation Matrix

IRM Influential Relation Map

X
 Chapter 1: Introduction

The IoT is perceived as one of the significant areas of future innovation and is acquiring huge

consideration from a great many ventures [1]. By definition The Internet of Things (IoT), is a network

of physical devices (things) which are connected over the internet in order to collect and exchange data

with each other. Application of IoT offers efficient and reliable solutions to several domains like smart

city, smart home, healthcare sector, supply chain and logistics, smart agriculture etc.[2]. One of the major

advantages of IoT implementation is that it controls and continuously monitors operations with zero or

minimal human intervention while facilitating user specific applications.

The backbone of India's economy is agriculture, which contributes between 65 and 70 percent

of the country's GDP. 19.9 percent of the GDP is produced from the 60.3 percent of agricultural land.

[3]. Agriculture supports 60% of people's jobs. But the report explains that one of the major reasons

responsible for the higher poverty levels in rural India’s populations is the strong dependency of most

rural populations on agriculture to sustain their livelihoods, exceeding 50% of the total population

affected. The main cause of the large percentage of poverty in rural people is the heavy dependency on

agriculture for livelihood support [4]. The agricultural sector is dealing with a lot of issues;

— Small farms are getting smaller;

— Farm employees are migrating as a result of rapid urbanization. (Expected to decline to about

26% of the labor force by 2050).

— Upcoming water shortage issue.

The Ministry of Agriculture's studies have indicated a connection between farm mechanization and

increased crop output. This will result in greater savings on agricultural inputs like seeds and fertilizer,

among other things.[5].

Considering these challenges, the adoption of IoT in agriculture is inevitable in every aspect. IoT

can minimize the need of the workforce by replacing them with smart sensors and actuators. Smart

irrigation system deployed by IoT prevents water wastage and supplies an adequate amount of water

required by crops, this is achieved by different sensors (humidity sensor, temperature sensor etc.) and
1
climate forecast data. One more benefit of IoT enabled farming is that farmers do not have to be in farm

facing harsh environmental conditions, almost everything can be monitored and controlled remotely. In

terms of business aspect, IoT is eventually changing business processes to provide more accurate

visibility to the flow of resources and products that too in real time, which consequently benefits farmers,

buyers, suppliers and other stakeholders.

Although IoT proves beneficial to the agriculture sector there are some challenges being faced

during implementing these technologies, so addressing those barriers is important. In order to determine

each barrier's importance on the system, this study tries to identify the main implementation barriers and

develop contextual relationships between them. With the aid of pre-existing literature, industrial papers,

and industry specialists, barriers are identified. To analyze identified barriers further ISM methodology

is used to prioritize selected barriers and then followed by DEMATEL approach to strengthen the results

concluded from the ISM model.

The main objectives of this study are:

• Identification of the barriers of IoT adoption in the Indian agriculture sector.

• building contextual interconnections between these barriers that have been recognized;

• addressing the barriers which can be used by relevant stakeholders for generating effective solutions.

2
 Chapter 2: Literature Review

The Internet of Things can be considered as a network of things which allows the data collection and

exchange among human and things [6]. Term “Things” refers to electronic devices and sensors.

IoT offers a wide range of tools to counter various challenges countered by the farmer in traditional

farming, in a way it is helping reshape the agriculture sector. To monitor the farm wireless camera,

wireless sensor networks are used with the interface of smartphones (or other smart devices), to which

they can connect from anywhere at any time. To manage farming processes such as irrigation, nutrient

management etc. are regulated through dedicated sensors and actuators [7]. When it comes down to

water management and conservation, energy (mainly electricity) management, remote access, manpower

requirements, etc., the current traditional methods of irrigation are not very effective. The capacity to

effectively regulate the irrigation process is something that the IoT can provide[6]. There are still

significant difficulties and constraints in IoT-based agricultural systems, even though they offer useful

information on farm-related physical factors that may be used to enhance conventional cultivation

methods and overall productivity. The main challenges in implementing IoT-based agriculture are

concerned with physical challenges, market challenges and challenges which are inherent to IoT

applications in general [8].

2.1 IoT in the Indian agriculture sector:

In India, more than 50% of the population is highly dependent on agriculture which predominantly

consists of small farmers. According to the 2010-11 Agriculture Census, almost 85 percent of farmers

are in marginal & small farm categories who have less than 2 hectare of farm land. These small farms,

though operating only on 44 per cent of land under cultivation, are the main providers of food and

nutritional security to the nation, but have limited access to technology, inputs, credit, capital and

markets[3]. The farm lands are also experiencing challenges such as climate change, degrading land

resources and quality, water scarcity, pests and diseases etc.

3
In such alarming conditions implementing current automation technologies in the agriculture sector

would be the right step to take. Though India has started adopting these technologies but at a very slow

pace that is why barriers, which are slowing down the adoption rate, need to be addressed.

2.2 Barrier Identification:

Literature search, published expert interviews, and industry reports were used to assess the barriers to

IoT implementation in the Indian agriculture sector.

1. Interoperability (IO): This consists of technical & syntactic (related to IoT systems),

semantic & organizational (related to People) interoperability. Technical interoperability

involves hardware and software, attaining effective standards is a challenge because the IoT

ecosystem consists of billions of IoT devices, which can be heterogeneous in nature.

Syntactic interoperability is related to non-standard data formats used to share or exchange

data of field parameters. Humans can interpret the same information differently, that is why

semantic interoperability is needed to be achieved. Organizational interoperability is the

competence of an organisation to successfully communicate and transmit data across various

infrastructure, geographical regions, and cultural contexts [9], [10].

2. IoT security and privacy (ISP): Application of IoT system brings challenges which are

inherent to it. Security and privacy challenges are still a major concern. IoT ecosystems are

vulnerable to Security breach cases such as Denial of service (DoS), Data Theft, Device

capture attack, SQL Injection attack, etc. at different layers. The perception layer is

vulnerable to external attack which can be physical or virtual in nature, securing network

layer and application layer from unauthorized access of data, is a major challenge[11], [12].

3. Cost (CST): Cost usually consists of setup cost and running cost of IoT system in farming

application. Our agriculture sector is already facing low profitability, Therefore, there is a

requirement for consistency in the trade-off between the implementations of Internet - of -

4
 things enabling technologies. Implementation cost of IoT is usually high and since most of

our farmers live in rural areas, this could be a barrier for IoT adoption[2].

4. Lack of awareness and knowledge (LAK): For farmers in rural areas, the farmer’s failure

to use knowledge for utilizing beneficial government schemes and advanced technologies in

their favour, can be a serious obstacle[7].

5. Infrastructure (IFS): supporting infrastructures required for active implementation of IoT

in the Indian agriculture sector are far from ready. Internet connectivity and electricity

supply seem to be major challenges for IoT adoption. Further, supporting IT infrastructure

is also not at a sufficient level[13].

6. Scalability (SLB): Scalability is associated with the handling of a continuously increasing

number of IoT devices. The IoT ecosystem is expanding at an explosive rate, thus

maintaining all the devices, user specific features and processing capability, is quite a

challenging task, that too while maintaining a certain level of quality of service[14].

7. Regulatory challenges and government policies (RGP): Regulatory policies and legal

frameworks concerned with the ownership of farm related data between farmers and data

firms, need to be sorted out. Without government support it would be impossible to

implement IoT technologies in the traditional farming sector[10].

8. Networking challenges (NC): Limited battery capacity, communication range and

propagation losses due to open agricultural surroundings etc. majorly influence affects the

implementation of IoT [15].

9. Choice of technology (COT): some of the IoT technologies are still in immature phase,

choosing the right technologies while considering the scale of farm, cost related factors,

geographical locations and other variables, is challenging. IoT technology is categorized as

IoT software, IoT Hardware and IoT connectivity, with these categories there are multiple

different technologies available, and currently it is difficult to decide which of these

technologies will dominate the upcoming market [13].

5
10. Reliability (RB): The IoT devices (sensors) are supposed to be installed in harsh outdoor

conditions which makes them vulnerable to extreme environmental conditions such as

moisture, rain, hurricane etc., this may lead to degradation in sensor’s capabilities over time

and connectivity failures[7].

6
 Chapter 3: Methodology

This study's primary goal is to create a structural framework for barriers. In which integrated ISM-

DEMATEL approach will be utilized. It starts with identification of barriers based on pre-existing

literature then data related to pair wise relationship among barriers, is collected. Based on this data ISM

& DEMATEL analysis is done in order to obtain ISM model & Cause/Effect relationship.

Literature Review

Identification of barriers in the

implementation IoT in the Indian agriculture
sector

Collection of Data & Establishment of

contextual relationship

Conducting ISM-DEMATEL DEMATEL

ISM method
Analysis Method

Building ISM & DEMATEL

(cause/effect) Model

Results

Conclusions

Figure 1. ISM-DEMATEL framework

7
3.1 ISM:

Determining the connection between barriers ISM (interpretive structural modelling), will be employed.

ISM is a well-known technique for creating a hierarchy out of the intricate interactions between

enablers.[16]. The ISM is a qualitative technique used to simplify complex structures so that they are

more easily understood and can be used to build structural models based on the expert's assessment.[17].

ISM methodology involves the following steps:

Step 1: It starts with identification of barriers based on study of the literature. The identified barriers are

shown in

Table 1. Barriers and their notation

Notation Barriers
IO. Interoperability
ISP. IoT security & Privacy
CST. Cost
LAK. Lack of Awareness & Knowledge
IFS. Infrastructure
SLB. Scalability
RGP. Government support & Policies
NC. Networking Challenges
COT. Choice of technology
RB. Reliability

Step 2: A pairwise comparison is done between barriers in order to establish contextual relationships

among barriers.

Step 3: Structural Self-Interaction Matrix construction to show pairwise relationships between variables

(SSIM). The V, A, O, and X are used to symbolize the matrix. These symbols were used to determine

how the factors I and J related to one another.

(1) V denotes that Factor A influences factor B (Forward relation).

(2) A denotes Factor A is influences by factor B (Backward relation).

8
(3) X: Factors A and B both affects/reaches to each other (Relation in both directions).

(4) O: A and B are unconnected factors. (No relation).

Based on steps described in this step, matrix has been developed as given Table 2

Table 2. SSIM matrix

IO ISP CST LAK IFS SLB RGP NC COT RB
Interoperability (IO) V V A O A O O A V
IoT privacy & security (ISP) X A O A A A A V
Cost (CST) O O O A V V A
Lack of awareness &
V O V O O O
Knowledge (LAK)
Infrastructure (IFS) V A V V V
Scalability (SLB) O O A O
Regulatory challenges (RGP) O O O
Networking challenges (NC) A V
Choice of Technology (COT) V
Reliability (RB)

Step 4: Reachability matrix is developed (Table 3) based on SSIM by changing V, A, X, and O in

accordance with the following rule;

1. If cell (i,j) in SSIM is “V” then cell (i,j) is replaced by 1 and cell (j,i) is replaced by 0.

2. If cell (i,j) in SSIM is “A” then cell (i,j) is replaced by 0 and cell (j,i) is replaced by 1.

3. If cell (i,j) in SSIM is “X” then cell (i,j) is replaced by 1 and cell (j,i) is replaced by 1.

4. If cell (i,j) in SSIM is “O” then cell (i,j) is replaced by 0 and cell (j,i) is replaced by 0

Table 3. Reachability matrix

IO ISP CST LAK IFS SLB RGP NC COT RB
Interoperability (IO) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
IoT privacy & security (ISP) 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Cost (CST) 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lack of awareness & Knowledge
1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
(LAK)
Infrastructure (IFS) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
Scalability (SLB) 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
Regulatory challenges (RGP) 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Networking challenges (NC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Choice of Technology (COT) 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
Reliability (RB) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

9
Step 5: The transitivity rule is then taken into account to produce the final reachability matrix, which

states that if element X influences element Y and element Y affects element Z, then element X will also

impact element Z. as shown in Table 4

Table 4. Final Reachability matrix

IO ISP CST LAK IFS SLB RGP NC COT RB D.P.

Interoperability (IO) 1 1 1 0 0 1* 0 1* 0 1 6
IoT privacy & security (ISP) 0 1 1 0 1* 1* 0 1* 1* 1 7
Cost (CST) 1* 1 1 0 0 1* 0 1 1 1* 7
Lack of awareness &
1 1 1* 1 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 10
Knowledge (LAK)
Infrastructure (IFS) 1* 1* 1* 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 8
Scalability (SLB) 1 1 1* 0 1* 1 0 0 1* 0 6
Regulatory challenges(RGP) 1* 1 1 0 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 9
Networking challenges (NC) 0 1 1* 0 1* 1* 0 1 1* 1 7
Choice of Technology (COT) 1 1 1* 0 1* 1 0 1 1 1 8
Reliability (RB) 1* 1* 1 0 1* 1* 0 1* 1* 1 8
Dependence 8 10 10 1 8 10 2 9 9 9

Step 6: The level partitioning of final reachability matrix is done into different levels. Level partitioning

of barriers is shown in Table 5. Using reachability set (RS) and antecedent set (AS) level partitioning is

achieved, reachability set (RS) of an element consists of all the element which are having “1” in its row,

and antecedent set of an element consists of all the elements which are having “1” in its column.

Intersection of both set is called Intersection set. If any element is having exact same elements in

intersection set and reachability set, then that element is given level 1 and removed from the table. Same

procedure is repeated until lowest level element is obtained.

Step 7: After level partitioning, transitivity linkages are eliminated and a digraph is drawn. A final

digraph is produced after the indirect relationships have been eliminated. Following this procedure,

diagram is changed into an ISM-model. MICMAC can then be used to further categorize the elements

into four clusters depending on dependence and driving power.

Step 8: Examine for conceptual ambiguities.

10
 Table 5. Iteration_01

Barriers RS AS IS Level

IO 1,2,3,6,8,10 1,3,4,5,6,7,9,10 1,3,6,10

ISP 2,3,5,6,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 2,3,5,6,8,9,10 Level-Ⅰ

CST 1,2,3,6,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,6,8,9,10 Level-Ⅰ

LAK 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 4 4

IFS 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10 2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 2,5,6,8,9,10

SLB 1,2,3,5,6,9 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,5,6,9 Level-Ⅰ

RGP 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10 4,7 4,7

NC 2,3,5,6,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10 2,3,5,8,9,10

COT 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 2,3,5,6,8,9,10

RB 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,5,8,9,10

Table 6. Iteration_02

Barriers RS AS IS Level

IO 1,8,10 1,4,5,7,9,10 1,10

LAK 1,4,5,7,8,9,10 4 4

IFS 1,5,8,9,10 4,5,7,8,9,10 5,8,9,10

RGP 1,5,7,8,9,10 4,7 4,7

NC 5,8,9,10 1,4,5,7,8,9,10 5,8,9,10 Level-Ⅱ

COT 1,5,8,9,10 4,5,7,8,9,10 5,8,9,10

RB 1,5,8,9,10 1,4,5,7,8,9,10 1,5,8,9,10 Level-Ⅱ

Table 7. Iteration_03

Barriers RS AS IS Level

IO 1 1,4,5,7,9 1 Level-Ⅲ

LAK 1,4,5,7,9 4 4

11
 IFS 1,5,9 4,5,7,9 5,9

RGP 1,5,7,9 4,7 4,7

COT 1,5,9 4,5,7,9 5,9

Table 8. Iteration_04

Barriers RS AS IS Level

LAK 4,5,7,9 4 4

IFS 5,9 4,5,7,9 5,9 Level-Ⅳ

RGP 5,7,9 4,7 4,7

COT 5,9 4,5,7,9 5,9 Level-Ⅳ

Table 9. Iteration_05

Barriers RS AS IS Level

LAK 4,7 4 4

RGP 7 4,7 7 Level-Ⅴ

Table 10. Iteration_06

Barriers RS AS IS Level

LAK 4 4 4 Level-Ⅵ

3.1.1 Factor Classification

Driving Power and Dependence in final reachability matrix will help us to classify the factors into

different categories.

a) Autonomous Factors: These factors involve weak driving and weak dependency influences. Both

the system and these factors have no impact on one another. The system is unaffected by the barriers in

this region, and the system is unaffected by the barriers.

b) Linkage Factors: These elements possess both strong driving and strong dependency forces. These
12
variables are not constant, hence any changes to these variables could have an impact on the system. This

group of barriers are unstable since any movement on them could have an impact on the system.

c) Dependent Factors: These factors exhibit both weak dependence and weak driving power.

d) Independent Factors: These elements, often known as "key factors," have a low dependency power

and a significant driving power.

Figure 2. MICMAC analysis

3.2 DEMATEL

The Geneva Research Center of the Battelle Memorial Institute created the Decision-Making Trial and

Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) technique in order to visualize the structure of complex causal

interactions using matrices or digraphs.[18]. The DEMATEL method simplifies complicated problem

13
structures and determines criteria which need more attention. The steps required for DEMATEL method

are given as following;

1. After identification of dimensions, a pairwise comparison of criteria is done in order to obtain direct

relationship among barriers.

2. To indicate pairwise relationships among dimensions, a Direct Relationship Matrix (DRM), Z is

established with the help of a five-point linguistic scale as shown in following table.;

Relationship Strength Numerals

No impact or influence 0
Lowest Influence 1
Moderate level Influence 2
High impact 3
Very High Impact 4

Table 11. Direct Relationship matrix

IO ISP CST LAK IFS SLB RGP NC COT RB

Interoperability (IO) 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
IoT privacy & security (ISP) 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Cost (CST) 1 4 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1
Lack of awareness & Knowledge
3 3 4 0 0 3 4 2 0 2
(LAK)
Infrastructure (IFS) 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0
Scalability (SLB) 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Regulatory challenges (RGP) 1 1 3 4 0 3 0 0 2 2
Networking challenges (NC) 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 3
Choice of Technology (COT) 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1
Reliability (RB) 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

14
3. A Normalize Matrix (NM), Y is developed with the help of direct relationship Matrix.

Table 12. Normalize Matrix

IO ISP CST LAK IFS SLB RGP NC COT RB

Interoperability (IO) 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

IoT privacy & security (ISP) 0.05 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cost (CST) 0.05 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.05

Lack of awareness & 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.10
Knowledge (LAK)
Infrastructure (IFS) 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00

Scalability (SLB) 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Regulatory challenges (RGP) 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

Networking challenges (NC) 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14

Choice of Technology (COT) 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

Reliability (RB) 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Using the formula below, the final Total Relation Matrix (TRM), T is constructed.

T = Y(I − Y)−1

Where “I” is defined as an Identity matrix of 10x10 (same as matrix Y)

Then sum of rows is calculated and represented as Ri, and sum of columns is calculated and

represented as Ci

15
 Table 13. Total Relationship matrix
IO ISP CST LAK IFS SLB RGP NC COT RB Ri

Interoperability (IO) 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.28

IoT privacy & security 0.06 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.51
(ISP)
Cost (CST) 0.07 0.25 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.79

Lack of awareness & 0.19 0.29 0.35 0.04 0.02 0.28 0.20 0.13 0.04 0.16 1.69
Knowledge (LAK)
Infrastructure (IFS) 0.02 0.15 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.55

Scalability (SLB) 0.01 0.09 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.33

Regulatory challenges 0.11 0.19 0.28 0.20 0.02 0.25 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.14 1.39
(RGP)
Networking challenges 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.66
(NC)
Choice of Technology 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.66
(COT)
Reliability (RB) 0.02 0.18 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.51

Ci 0.55 1.56 1.73 0.24 0.25 1.36 0.24 0.50 0.31 0.64

5. After Total Relation Matrix, an Influential Relation Map (IRM) is created to find the cause-and-effect dimensions

Table 14. IRM

Ri Ci Ri + Ci Ri - Ci Nature

Interoperability (IO) 0.28 0.55 0.83 -0.27 Effect

IoT privacy & security (ISP) 0.51 1.56 2.07 -1.05 Effect

Cost (CST) 0.79 1.73 2.52 -0.94 Effect

Lack of awareness & Knowledge 1.69 0.24 1.93 1.45 Cause

(LAK)
Infrastructure (IFS) 0.55 0.25 0.8 0.3 Cause

Scalability (SLB) 0.33 1.36 1.69 -1.03 Effect

Regulatory challenges (RGP) 1.39 0.24 1.63 1.15 Cause

Networking challenges (NC) 0.66 0.5 1.16 0.16 Cause

Choice of Technology (COT) 0.66 0.31 0.97 0.35 Cause

Reliability (RB) 0.51 0.64 1.15 -0.13 Effect

16
6. Then the causal diagraph is created to see the effectiveness of dimensions. For this purpose, Ri and Ci

of each corresponding barrier is plotted.

7. Conceptual inconsistency is checked and necessary modifications are made in the Final DEMATEL

model.

17
 Chapter 4: Results

The developed ISM model (as shown in Figure 3) indicates that with high driving power ‘Lack of

awareness & Knowledge’ (LAK), ‘Regulatory Challenges & Government Policies’ (RGP),

‘Infrastructure’ (IFS) are the most influential barriers which hinder in adoption of IoT in agriculture,

these require more focus to avoid implementation obstacles. With high dependence, ‘IoT Privacy and

Security’ (ISP), ‘Cost’ (CST) and ‘Interoperability’ (IO) are the most influenced barriers.

.
IoT Privacy and
Cost (CST) Scalability (SLB)
Security (ISP)

Networking
Reliability (RB)
Challenges (NC)

Interoperability
(IO)

Infrastructure Choice of
(IFS) Technology
(COT)

Regulatory Challenges &

Government Policies (RGP)

Lack of awareness & Knowledge

(LAK)

Figure 3. ISM model

18
Driving power vs Dependence plot obtained from MICMAC analysis show following results:

1. There are no barriers that lie in autonomous quadrant.

2. “Interoperability (IO)”, “IoT security & Privacy” (ISP), “Cost” (CST), “Scalability”

(SLB), “Networking Challenges” (NC) fall into dependent category.

3. “Infrastructure” (IFS), “Choice of technology” (COT), “Reliability” (RB) fall into linkage

barrier category

4. ‘Lack of awareness & Knowledge’ (LAK), ‘Regulatory Challenges & Government

Policies’ (RGP) lie in Independent quadrant.

LAK, 1.93, 1.45

RGP, 1.63, 1.15
1.5

COT, 0.97, 0.35

1

IFS, 0.8, 0.3

NC, 1.16, 0.16
0.5
Ri-Ci

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
SLB, 1.69, -1.03
CST, 2.52, -0.94
-0.5 IO, 0.83, -0.27

ISP, 2.07, -1.05

RB, 1.15, -0.13
-1

-1.5
Ri+Ci

Figure 4. Cause effect diagram

19
Figure 4 shows cause and effect relationship, it can be seen ‘Lack of awareness & Knowledge’ (LAK),

‘Regulatory Challenges & Government Policies’ (RGP), ‘Infrastructure’ (IFS), ‘Choice of Technology’

(COT) & ‘Networking Challenges’ (NC) belongs to the ‘Cause’ group and ‘IoT privacy & security’

(ISP), ‘Cost’ (CST), ‘Interoperability’ (IO), ‘Scalability’ (SLB) & ‘Reliability’ (RB) belongs to the

‘Effect’ group. To solve the implementation problems barriers of the ‘Cause’ group needs more attention

as they are potentially causing the problem.

Further, based on the outcome of both proposed methodologies, ranking of each barrier has been

generated, as shown in Table 15 both method suggests similar result.

Table 15. Result validation

Notation Barrier ISM Model Ranking DEMATEL
Ranking
IO Interoperability Ⅶ Ⅶ

ISP IoT privacy & security Ⅹ Ⅹ

CST Cost Ⅷ Ⅷ

LAK Lack of awareness and Knowledge Ⅰ Ⅰ

IFS Infrastructure Ⅳ Ⅳ

SLB Scalability Ⅸ Ⅸ

RGP Regulatory challenges and government policies Ⅱ Ⅱ

NC Networking challenges Ⅵ Ⅴ

COT Choice of Technology Ⅲ Ⅲ

RB Reliability Ⅴ Ⅵ

20
 Chapter 5: Discussion

IoT offers number of benefits to the Indian agriculture sector by enhancing agricultural productivity and

quality of life for small farmers. This study identified critical barriers which were influencing IoT

adoption in our country. These identified barriers were further analyzed using combined ISM-

DEMATEL approach, while complimenting each other’s results, both methodologies suggest most

critical barriers are ‘Lack of awareness & Knowledge’, ‘Regulatory Challenges & Government Policies’,

‘Infrastructure’, ‘Choice of Technology’ & ‘Networking Challenges’ in the implementation of IoT.

While “Cost”, “IoT privacy and security” & “Scalability” are barriers having most dependency on other

barriers.

Additionally, ISM model (Figure 3) and Cause effect diagram (Figure 4) was developed to

comprehend the results of this study. Further result was validated by expert’s opinion and past research

done in related area (references are mentioned in Table 16). According to the research presented in this

paper, in order to successfully adopt IoT in the Indian agriculture sector, these essential obstacles must

be addressed and removed.

Table 16. Result Validation by comparing with past research

Sr.N. Barrier Nature Reference

IO Interoperability Effect [19]

ISP IoT privacy & security Effect [20]

CST Cost Effect [10], [21]

LAK Lack of awareness and Knowledge Cause [7]

IFS Infrastructure Cause [22]

SLB Scalability Effect [23]

RGP Regulatory challenges and government policies Cause [5], [10], [24]

NC Networking challenges Cause [22]

COT Choice of Technology Cause [10], [25]

RB Reliability Effect -

21
From the result of MICMAC, ‘Lack of awareness & Knowledge’, ‘Regulatory Challenges &

Government Policies’ are the two barriers that fall into “Independent barrier” category. These barriers

are the most prominent considerations since they have a high driving power and a low dependency power.

22
 Chapter 6. Conclusion
In this research, IoT and its advantages in the agriculture sector have been discussed. IoT has been

certainly the most influential technology in current industries. Our Agriculture industry can also gain

advantages from it. As discussed in this paper, there are certain obstacles which are restricting our

agriculture sector. This paper and previous literature suggests that government related factors play major

role in the implementation of these technologies. Government of India has already taken initiatives in

this area, but due lack of knowledge and awareness of the farmers are not able to properly utilize these

schemes and policies. Lack of Infrastructure is also a significant barrier in the adoption process, as there

are still not proper electricity and Internet connectivity in rural areas. These major factors need more

attention in order to implement automation technologies such as IoT in our country. Further research

and analysis still need to be done to know the implication of IoT in a better way.

23
 Chapter 7. Limitation & Future Scope

To achieve the goals of this study, combined ISM-DEMATEL approach was used, but there some

limitations are with this approach and since data collections is generally dependent of literature reviews

and expert’s own judgement there could be some unknown variables which are not being highlighted in

the past researches but they are actually affecting the actual Implementation of IoT.

This study aims to identify critical barriers and significance & nature of each barriers. There is

a future scope for the research in the direction of individual barriers. There’s also prospects of the

research in the development of sustainable IoT ecosystem for implementation of IoT in Indian agriculture

sector.

24
 References

[1] I. Lee and K. Lee, “The Internet of Things (IoT): Applications, investments, and challenges for
enterprises,” Business Horizons, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 431–440, Jul. 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.008.
[2] M. S. Farooq, S. Riaz, A. Abid, K. Abid, and M. A. Naeem, “A Survey on the Role of IoT in
Agriculture for the Implementation of Smart Farming,” IEEE Access, vol. 7. Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 156237–156271, 2019. doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2949703.
[3] “Vision 2050 ICAR.” https://icar.org.in/files/Vision-2050-ICAR.pdf (accessed Jul. 10, 2022).
[4] M. Suresh and S. M. Priya, “Internet of Things (IoT) in Agriculture: an Overview of the
Concepts and Challenges in its Implementation”, [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360777234
[5] “Transforming Agriculture Through Mechanisation A Knowledge Paper on Indian farm
equipment sector.” Accessed: Jul. 10, 2022. [Online]. Available:
http://ficci.in/spdocument/20682/agrimach.pdf
[6] K. Nanda Kumar, A. Vijayan Pillai, and M. K. Badri Narayanan, “Smart agriculture using IoT,”
Materials Today: Proceedings, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.474.
[7] B. B. Sinha and R. Dhanalakshmi, “Recent advancements and challenges of Internet of Things
in smart agriculture: A survey,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 126. Elsevier B.V.,
pp. 169–184, Jan. 01, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.future.2021.08.006.
[8] W. Tao, L. Zhao, G. Wang, and R. Liang, “Review of the internet of things communication
technologies in smart agriculture and challenges,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,
vol. 189. Elsevier B.V., Oct. 01, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2021.106352.
[9] K. K. Patel, S. M. Patel, and P. G. Scholar, “Internet of Things-IOT: Definition, Characteristics,
Architecture, Enabling Technologies, Application & Future Challenges,” 2016. [Online].
Available: http://ijesc.org/
[10] O. Elijah, T. A. Rahman, I. Orikumhi, C. Y. Leow, and M. N. Hindia, “An Overview of Internet
of Things (IoT) and Data Analytics in Agriculture: Benefits and Challenges,” IEEE Internet of
Things Journal, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 3758–3773, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2018.2844296.
[11] V. K. Quy et al., “IoT-Enabled Smart Agriculture: Architecture, Applications, and Challenges,”
Applied Sciences (Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 7. MDPI, Apr. 01, 2022. doi:
10.3390/app12073396.
[12] A. Tzounis, N. Katsoulas, T. Bartzanas, and C. Kittas, “Internet of Things in agriculture, recent
advances and future challenges,” Biosystems Engineering, vol. 164. Academic Press, pp. 31–48,
Dec. 01, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.09.007.
[13] S. F. Khan and M. Y. Ismail, “An investigation into the challenges and opportunities associated
with the application of Internet of Things (IoT) in the agricultural sector-A review,” Journal of
Computer Science, vol. 14, no. 2. Science Publications, pp. 132–143, Sep. 06, 2017. doi:
10.3844/jcssp.2018.132.143.
[14] “Build a Scalable Platform for High-Performance IoT Applications.” Accessed: Jul. 10, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.tcs.com/content/dam/tcs/pdf/discover-tcs/Research-and-
Innovation/Build_a_Scalable_Platform_pdf.pdf
[15] H. M. Jawad, R. Nordin, S. K. Gharghan, A. M. Jawad, and M. Ismail, “Energy-efficient
wireless sensor networks for precision agriculture: A review,” Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 17,
no. 8. MDPI AG, Aug. 03, 2017. doi: 10.3390/s17081781.
[16] A. K. Bhadani, R. Shankar, and D. V. Rao, “Modeling the barriers of service adoption in rural
Indian telecom using integrated ISM-ANP,” Journal of Modelling in Management, vol. 11, no.
1, pp. 2–25, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1108/JM2-09-2013-0041.
[17] S. Manoharan, V. S. Kumar Pulimi, G. Kabir, and S. M. Ali, “Contextual relationships among
drivers and barriers to circular economy: An integrated ISM and DEMATEL approach,”
Sustainable Operations and Computers, vol. 3, pp. 43–53, 2022, doi:
25
 10.1016/j.susoc.2021.09.003.
[18] S. L. Si, X. Y. You, H. C. Liu, and P. Zhang, “DEMATEL Technique: A Systematic Review of
the State-of-the-Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications,” Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, vol. 2018. Hindawi Limited, 2018. doi: 10.1155/2018/3696457.
[19] C. Brewster, I. Roussaki, N. Kalatzis, K. Doolin, and K. Ellis, “IoT in Agriculture: Designing a
Europe-Wide Large-Scale Pilot,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 26–33,
2017, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2017.1600528.
[20] L. Kumari, K. Narsaiah, M. K. Grewal, and R. K. Anurag, “Application of RFID in agri-food
sector,” Trends in Food Science and Technology, vol. 43, no. 2. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 144–161, Jun.
01, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2015.02.005.
[21] S. Qazi, B. A. Khawaja, and Q. U. Farooq, “IoT-Equipped and AI-Enabled Next Generation
Smart Agriculture: A Critical Review, Current Challenges and Future Trends,” IEEE Access,
vol. 10. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 21219–21235, 2022. doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3152544.
[22] M. Sharma, S. Joshi, D. Kannan, K. Govindan, R. Singh, and H. C. Purohit, “Internet of Things
(IoT) adoption barriers of smart cities’ waste management: An Indian context,” Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 270, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122047.
[23] https://www.particle.io/iot-guides-and-resources/iot-scalability/, “IoT Scalability: What It
Means, Common Challenges, and How to Scale Effectively.”
[24] I. Zambon, M. Cecchini, G. Egidi, M. G. Saporito, and A. Colantoni, “Revolution 4.0: Industry
vs. agriculture in a future development for SMEs,” Processes, vol. 7, no. 1. MDPI AG, Jan. 01,
2019. doi: 10.3390/pr7010036.
[25] R. Rohan, D. Pal, B. Watanapa, and S. Funilkul, “Emerging Paradigm of IoT Enabled Smart
Villages,” in Digest of Technical Papers - IEEE International Conference on Consumer
Electronics, 2022, vol. 2022-January. doi: 10.1109/ICCE53296.2022.9730482.

26