Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Industry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compind

An investigation into emerging industry 4.0 technologies as drivers of

supply chain innovation in Australia
John L. Hopkins
Department of Business Technology and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, 3122, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As supply chains recover from the impact of COVID-19, a sudden acceleration of interest in digitalization
Received 19 February 2020 and automation is expected, as firms increasingly look towards digital technologies as sources of innova-
Received in revised form 27 August 2020 tion in the wake of an extreme disruption. The purpose of this study is to utilize the experience of supply
Accepted 15 September 2020
chain practitioners, to ascertain the current level of adoption of a number of key Industry 4.0 technolo-
gies, understand what preparatory measures are being taken by firms to ensure they are digitally-ready
Keywords:
to utilise Industry 4.0 technologies, recognise how and where these technologies are likely impact sup-
Industry 4.0
ply chains, and investigate whether organisational size is a factor in technology adoption. This empirical
Supply chain innovation
COVID-19
study utilises primary data from a descriptive survey of supply chain practitioners working across a range
Big data analytics of industry sectors and different stages in the supply chain. Whilst the findings from this research indicate
Blockchain that some Industry 4.0 technologies are still in the early stages of adoption, amongst Australian supply
Internet of things chain organisations, they clearly show which technologies are anticipated to have the greatest impact,
Autonomous vehicles what sectors that impact will most likely occur in, and which specific improvements they are expected
Artificial intelligence to drive. Larger firms were found to be more digitally-ready than smaller firms, and a number of signif-
Virtual reality icant gaps were identified between expected impact and expected investment, meaning little spend is
3D printing
currently projected for certain technologies that are expected to have a significant impact.
Crown Copyright © 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction gies, if they are to keep pace with the growing demands of today’s
customers, who want everything cheaper, faster and more per-
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a global survey of 1,116 supply sonalised (Deloitte, 2018; GSCI, 2017; Montgomery, 2018), and
chain professionals concluded that emerging digital technologies the disruption they cause can quickly leave behind those who
and innovations are ‘driving massive changes and improvements don’t adapt their digital strategies accordingly (Waller and Fawcett,
in supply chain’ (Deloitte, 2018, p. 3). They were predicted to 2013). In an increasingly digital world, the extent to how ‘digitally
completely disrupt our traditional ways of working, by creating ready’ an organisation is to benefit from the increasing capability of
a ‘smoothly running, self-regulating utility that optimally manages emerging digital technologies, the better outcomes they can expect
end-to-end work flows and requires very little human intervention’ in the long term (Cisco, 2018). This has never been more important
(Lyall et al., 2018, p. 2). Supply chains are becoming increasingly than it is today, as supply chain firms recover from the COVID-19
sophisticated in the way they connect business partners, promote global pandemic, and increasingly look towards digital technolo-
collaboration, diffuse innovation, enable data-driven decision mak- gies as a mechanism for improving long-term performance, agility
ing, and track movements in real time. and resilience (Kilpatrick, 2020; Papadopoulos et al., 2020).
Digital technologies are one of the key components for driv- Industry 4.0 (I4) is a term that has been widely adopted to
ing operational and supply chain innovation (Arlbjørn et al., 2011), describe what many consider to be the Fourth Industrial Revolu-
as platforms for generating and exchanging vast amounts of data, tion, the emergence of cyber physical systems to enable automated
which catalyses improved value creation across all sectors (Kache manufacturing in smart factories (Lasi et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2015),
and Seuring, 2017; LaValle et al., 2011). Supply chain managers which is expected to have significant implications for future ‘invest-
need to be increasingly aware of the capabilities of new technolo- ment, consumption, growth, employment, and trade’ (Piccarozzi
et al., 2018, p. 2). The principle driver for I4 is the emergence of key
technologies, including 3D Printing, Advanced Robotics, Artificial
Intelligence (AI), Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), Big Data Analytics
E-mail address: [email protected] (BDA), Blockchain, Drones, the Internet of Things (IoT), and Aug-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103323
0166-3615/Crown Copyright © 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

mented Reality (AR) (Fernández-Caramés and Fraga-Lamas, 2019; 2. Materials and methods
Lu, 2017; Rüßmann et al., 2015), and despite its origins in man-
ufacturing, it has wider implications for supply chains, where A descriptive online survey was chosen as the most appro-
the combination of these technologies, with increasing customer priate method for this research, as descriptive research enables
empowerment, has been described as a ‘perfect storm of innova- the characteristics of a phenomenon to be studied within their
tion’ (Howells, 2018). real-life context (Yin, 2003). Focussing on the ‘what’ rather than
I4 is a topic which is currently attracting a great deal of the ‘why,’ surveys are particularly effective for studying specific
attention from academic researchers, particularly in the field of populations, and collecting data regarding opinions, attitudes, pref-
manufacturing/engineering, but less has been written about the erences, and common characteristics (McMurray, 2004). Online
broader impact of these technologies, and how their data-driven surveys are also an appropriate method for quickly accessing large
nature contributes to the digitalization of modern supply chains. populations simultaneously, facilitate data collection in a time-
These technologies could play a valuable role in the future of efficient manner, are convenient for participants to complete, have
supply chains, toward a smarter, better-connected, supply chain low administration costs, and support a diverse range of differ-
ecosystem (Schrauf and Berttram, 2016), and potential supply ent question types (Akbari and Hopkins, 2016; Evans and Mathur,
chain application areas for I4 technologies may include, logis- 2005).
tics (Hofmann and Rüsch, 2017; Hopkins and Hawking, 2018), The chosen method provides the researcher with a snapshot of
procurement (Glas and Kleemann, 2016; Hopkins and Sohal, the phenomenon under investigation, at a set point in time, from
2019), warehousing (Lee et al., 2018), supply chain optimiza- which inferences can then be drawn (Galliers, 1990). The method
tion (Tjahjono et al., 2017), customer relationship management does not necessarily claim to establish causal relationships, but it
(Saucedo-Martínez et al., 2018), and supply chain sustainability is an effective tool for collecting primary data about specific phe-
(Manavalan and Jayakrishna, 2019). nomena, from which empirical observations can be made (Chisnall,
Australia has been identified as a region having a high level of 1993).
supply chain maturity (Baldwin and Lopez-Gonzalez, 2015; Fayezi In this instance, the online survey was designed to collect
et al., 2015), and is widely recognized as an early adopter of tech- the opinions of Australian supply chain practitioners, and was
nology (Gill et al., 2016; Power and Sohal, 2002; Ried, 2017), which conducted in collaboration with the Supply Chain & Logistics
makes it an appropriate choice for this investigation. To underline Association of Australia (SCLAA), who are Australia’s largest pro-
this decision, a recent industry survey discovered Australian execu- fessional association for supply chain and logistics professionals
tives as being ‘more likely’ to invest in disruptive new technologies and practitioners, with a membership of over 3000 active mem-
than their counterparts in other countries (Deloitte, 2019). bers. The SCLAA were chosen as the most appropriate partner for
The key aim of this research is to better understand the current this research as their membership spans the full supply chain spec-
adoption rates of emerging I4 technologies amongst Australian sup- trum, from manufacturers and suppliers, to third party logistics (3
ply chain organisations, and analyse the opinions of today’s supply PL) firms, wholesalers and retailers, and they were identified as
chain experts regarding the impact these technologies will have having the best channels available for reaching the target cohort
on supply chains in the future, in order to drive new insights that (Australian supply chain professionals). They also had a shared
inform supply chain professionals and academic researchers, iden- interest and passion for understanding how I4 technologies will
tify opportunities and challenges, assist business upskilling, and impact this profession.
help direct future education and training in this area. To qualify for membership of the SCLAA, all applicants are
In order to achieve this objective, these first two research ques- assessed on the basis of their experience and qualifications,
tions will be addressed: to ensure they are appropriately-skilled logistics, transport and
RQ1 – What is the current level of I4 technology adoption across supply chain management professionals. All new membership
Australian supply chain organizations?? applications also require a letter of support from an existing
RQ2 – How and where will emerging I4 technologies impact Aus- member. This membership screening process ensured that SCLAA
tralian supply chains? members were an appropriate target population for this study.
Whilst technology adoption is a primary component in any The SCLAA assisted in piloting early versions of the survey
organisation’s digital transformation strategy, adequate training, instrument, and distributed the link to the final version of the online
preparation, and the availability of appropriately-skilled staff to questionnaire to their membership base, using targeted email lists
harness the full potential of technologies, is another significant fac- and a series of LinkedIn posts. The final survey consisted of 73
tor (Cisco, 2018; Lorenz et al., 2015; Pfeiffer, 2015; Schallock et al., questions, including a mixture of multiple choice, Likert scale, drop-
2018). Therefore, in order to examine that aspect in this investiga- down lists, and open-ended text field responses (Appendix 1), and
tion, RQ3 seeks to understand– What preparatory measures are being was designed to take no longer than 20 min to complete. An odd
taken by Australian supply chain firms to ensure they are digitally- number 7-point scale was selected for the Likert questions, as an
ready for the impact of I4 technologies? odd number enables an accurate response to be captured from par-
Finally, the size of the organisation is also of interest, as previous ticipants who are genuinely neutral on a subject, rather than an
research has indicated that organisational size is a critical factor even scale which forces them to answer higher or lower than the
in the adoption of information technologies (Palvia, Means Jr, & mid-point (Malhotra, 2006).
Jackson, 1994; Premkumar and Roberts, 1999). In order to test if The online survey was accessible for four weeks, and designed
that theory is valid, for the adoption of I4 technologies by Australian to collect the following data:
supply chain firms, this final research will be posed:
RQ4 – To what extent does organizational size impact the adoption • Basic demographic information
of I4 technologies? • Current adoption rates for digital technologies,
The methods adopted by this research, in order to address these • Predict how each digital technology will impact participants’
four research questions, will be discussed in the following section. firms,

2
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

• Predict how each digital technology will impact participants’ sec- Von Hippel (2007, p. 1331) believed that, “a supply chain net-
tors, work with superior knowledge management is far more capable
• Predict the level of investment that will be made in each digital of innovation than a network with less effective knowledge shar-
technology over the next 10 years, ing,” and successful supply chain relationships have widely been
• Current preparatory actions being taken for the emergence of identified as key drivers of quality, delivery and cost improve-
each digital technology, ments (Hartley et al., 1997; Kim, 2000; Lau and Lau, 1994; Monczka
• Concerns regarding each emerging technology, et al., 1993). However, Arlbjørn et al. (2011) believe that it extends
• Free text feedback to capture any additional information the par- beyond that, and the concept of SCI involves a combination of
ticipants may wish to contribute. three key elements – processes, technology, and network structure.
Processes are defined as activities that “produce a specific output
Web-based tool Opinio was selected as the platform for this of value to the end consumer.. implemented not only within the
focal firm, but also across the members of the supply chain net-
survey, it has built-in functionality for both authoring and distribut-
ing surveys, and response data was exported directly into SPSS for work,” technology can be “used in isolation or in combination with
analysis. A combination of descriptive statistics, frequency tables, other technologies to enable increased collaboration, information
exchange, as well as visibility within supply chain networks,” and
cross-tabulation and linear regression techniques were employed
to analyze the data. The feasibility of the results, and the over- the network structure refers to the manner in which the network is
configured (Arlbjørn and Paulraj, 2013, p. 4). The interrelationships
arching positive relationship between technology adoption and
between these three elements are described as innovations within
expected impact, was validated using the Pearson correlation coef-
ficient method. The project was approved by the author’s Human the supply chain network (ISCN).
Ethics Committee in advance of the survey being distributed. As we enter an era where supply chains are looking to leverage I4
224 participants commenced the questionnaire, but 21 failed technologies to ‘transform business processes, develop new deliv-
to complete all questions, and were therefore excluded from the ery models, and create the kinds of experiences that empowered
sample. Similarly, 15 student members were also excluded from customers expect,’ driving innovative changes in the manufac-
the final sample, as no professional experience or qualifications are ture, transportation, marketing, storage and payment of goods and
required to qualify for that level of membership. This resulted in a services, it is important to investigate the implications this will
final sample of 188 usable responses. have for firms (Stachová et al., 2019). Supply chains follow a tra-
ditional SCOR model, of plan, source, make, deliver, return, and
enable activities, and each stage of this model is now being dis-
3. Theory rupted by technological innovation (Schrauf and Berttram, 2016).
Organisations have long recognised how technological innovations,
Traditionally, investments in new technology are driven by driven not only by themselves but by their network of supply
ambitions to improve productivity and efficiency, increase qual- chain partners and customers, have a positive impact on the per-
ity levels, reduce/eliminate problems, expand data and knowledge, formance of the overall supply chain, and collaborative innovation
improve communication, or enhance prestige (Crespi et al., 2007; activities have been found to increase the overall innovation per-
Hillmer, 2009). However, simply investing in the technology will formance of supply chains (Wang and Hu, 2017). The enhanced
not result in the desired outcomes by itself, as there is a need for that virtualization of supply-chain interactions that will be possible,
technology to be used in an ‘appropriate manner’ – this appropriate through the implementation of I4 technologies, could enable seam-
use of new technologies is termed ‘technology adoption’ (Agarwal less inter-company connectivity, with real-time access to product
and Prasad, 1998). and production information, for all participating organisations in a
New technologies represent innovation to potential adopters network (Brettel et al., 2014).
(Agarwal and Prasad, 1997), and innovation is widely accepted to be The characteristics of I4 technologies and concepts are viewed
a “multi-stage process whereby organisations transform ideas into as having ‘high importance,’ for driving product or process inno-
new/improved products, service or processes, in order to advance, vations, to enable a technological view of procurement, production
compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their mar- and distribution activities throughout the supply chain (Pfohl et al.,
ketplace” (Baregheh et al., 2009, p. 1334). It is a vital component 2015). Key benefits from this could include increased flexibility,
of a firm’s competitiveness, and causes organizations to increas- optimised decision making, higher quality standards, and improved
ingly look to their supply networks for innovative new ways to efficiency and productivity, enabling mass customization to better
achieve process improvement, increase performance, and inno- meet customers’ demands (Tjahjono et al., 2017).
vate their business models, which has made it a topic of interest Improvements in functions such as delivery and network design,
for many supply chain researchers (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, reducing touch points, removing bottlenecks and decreasing the
2002; De Martino et al., 2013; Hopkins and Hawking, 2018; Ivan Su time taken for products to be delivered to customers, creates
et al., 2011; Kavin and Narasimhan, 2017; Rebolledo et al., 2009; greater overall customer value and increases the likelihood of
Simmons et al., 2013). repeat business, to the benefit of all actors in that network.
In an era where supply chains compete against other supply As Australia demonstrates a high level of supply chain matu-
chains, it is increasingly important to continue the development of rity (Baldwin and Lopez-Gonzalez, 2015; Fayezi et al., 2015), and is
innovative, customer-focussed digital solutions that enable supply regarded as an early adopter of new technologies (Gill et al., 2016;
chain partners to streamline existing processes, not just for prod- Power and Sohal, 2002; Ried, 2017), it presents an appropriate
ucts and delivery, but across the entire customer experience. In region in which to base this investigation.
recent years, supply chain innovation (SCI) has emerged as a field When selecting which technologies should form the basis of this
of investigation in its own right, exploring its role as a mechanism investigation, it quickly became apparent that the I4 field is highly
for enhancing customer value (Munksgaard et al., 2014), and for heterogeneous, and that no unique and concise definition or formal
driving new business models (Abdelkafi and Pero, 2018). Similarly, classification framework for I4 technologies existed in the current
investigations into the role supply chains play in “doing something body of academic literature (Chiarello et al., 2018; Hofmann and
novel to produce value in the form of new products and new ser- Rüsch, 2017; Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016).
vices,” have also given rise to a new Emerging Technology Supply For example, Dalmarco and Barros (2018) identify I4 as being
Chains (ETSC) field of research (Linton, 2017, p. 1). represented by eight key technology areas: 3D printing; BDA;

3
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 1. Research Framework.

cloud computing; cyber-physical systems; cyber security; inter- layers from feed material (Rengier et al., 2010). Mainly used for new
net of things; robotics; and visual computing. However, Tjahjono product prototyping in its earlier days, 3D printing now promises
et al. (2017) think slightly differently, and identify VR/AR, 3D to challenge traditional volume/variety trade-offs in manufacturing
printing, simulation, BDA, cloud, cybersecurity, IoT, miniaturiza- (Bozarth and Handfield, 2008), as a viable option in instances where
tion of electronics, Auto-ID, robotics, drones, machine-to-machine production volumes are small, end-user customization is desirable
communication, business intelligence and AI, as being the key I4 (Weller et al., 2015), and features need to be manufactured which
technologies. Fernández-Caramés and Fraga-Lamas (2019) classify can’t be created using traditional means (Petrick and Simpson,
Blockchain as an I4 technology, and the importance of autonomous 2013). It promises to also disrupt the existing spare parts supply
vehicles in I4 has also been widely discussed (Gilchrist, 2016; Lom chain and create a ‘substitution scenario’ which may replace tra-
et al., 2016). ditional manufacturing (Khajavi et al., 2014; Rehnberg and Ponte,
The term Industry 4.0 was found to be commonly used to 2018). This ‘dematerialisation’ of physical products enables cus-
describe a wide range of different technologies, the classification tomers to purchase data, and print the physical version of the
for which can differ significantly, from article to article. In the product themselves, unites digitization and servitization (Lerch and
absence of a consistent definition for I4, the list of technologies Gotsch, 2015; Vendrell-Herrero et al., 2017). This supports reduced
chosen for this research were those considered to represent the transportation and storage costs, improvements in last mile deliv-
most significant I4 Megatrends and NextGen supply chain inno- ery (McKinnon, 2016), a shortening of product development cycles
vation themes at the time of commencing this investigation, those (Rehnberg and Ponte, 2018), an outsourcing of manufacturing costs
regularly discussed in academic and non-academic literature, white to the end consumer (Rayna and Striukova, 2014), lower energy
papers, industry forums and corporate blogs etc. (Almada-Lobo, usage and a reduction CO2 emissions (Gebler et al., 2014).
2015; Barreto et al., 2017; Chiarello et al., 2018; Deloitte, 2018;
Eckert et al., 2016; GSCI, 2017; Ivanov et al., 2019; Manavalan and
Jayakrishna, 2019; Pacchini et al., 2019; Tjahjono et al., 2017). These 3.2. Artificial intelligence
technologies will now be defined and briefly discussed.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is defined as ‘agents that receive per-
cepts from the environment, which enable those agents to map
3.1. 3D printing percept sequences in order to perform specific actions’ (Russell and
Norvig, 2016, p. 9), underlining an ability of machines to demon-
Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, describes a process for strate intelligence, as opposed to humans or animals. Advances
creating 3D physical haptic objects from digital data, building up in AI enable real-time fraud and risk management to be per-

4
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 2. Demographic Information of Survey Participants.

formed (Lotakov, 2016); have led to improved inventory placement are widely promised to lower overall shipping costs, reduce acci-
(Frommberger et al., 2012), and could remove many current human dents, eliminate driver wages, reduce liability, reduce fuel costs and
tasks from the workplace. The McKinsey Global Institute (2017) reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Bonnefon et al., 2016; Greenblatt
predicted that AI will enable the automation of at least 30 % of and Saxena, 2015; Heard et al., 2018; Litman, 2017; Van Meldert
current tasks associated with the majority of US occupations. and De Boeck, 2016).

3.3. Autonomous vehicles 3.4. Big data analytics

Autonomous vehicles are vehicles which are capable of “intel- Big data analytics (BDA), first identified as a performance chal-
ligent motion and action without requiring either a guide or lenge for computer systems that struggled to process large data
teleoperator control” (Lozano-Perez, 2012, p. xix), they can perceive sets which over-burdened the “capacities of main memory, local
their own environment, and respond appropriately when faced disk, and even remote disk” (Cox and Ellsworth, 1997, p. 4), is
with unexpected situations (Hagen et al., 2007). The integration now established as a critical mechanism for driving supply chain
of these vehicles, across a range of supply chain functions, is seen improvement (Hazen et al., 2014, 2016a,b; LaValle et al., 2011;
as an important step in the evolution towards digital supply chain Novoa and Storer, 2009; Tan et al., 2015; Waller and Fawcett,
networks (Bechtsis et al., 2018). The potential impact of long-haul 2013). Supply chains generate vast amounts of data, as networks
autonomous trucks is seen as extremely significant (Abbott et al., of organizations communicate, monitor and transact, in an effort
2017), whilst the technologies required for autonomous shipping to quickly move their products from the point of manufacture
also already exist (Jokioinen et al., 2016), and autonomous vehicles to the point of consumption (Russom, 2011; Wang et al., 2016).

5
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 3. Current Adoption Rates for each Emerging Digital Technology.

These digital networks of multi-directional, real-time, informa- 2018; Schröder et al., 2018; Sun and Zhang, 2018; Troudi et al.,
tion flows enable the identification of new opportunities and 2018).
support digitally-enabled supply chain strategies (Schoenherr and
Speier-Pero, 2015). BDA enables better targeted marketing, predic- 3.7. Internet of things
tive analytics, more accurate forecasting, improved agility, clearer
business insights, client-based segmentation, and improved recog- Emerging from research at MIT’s Auto-ID Centre in the late
nition of sales and marketing opportunities (Barbosa et al., 2018; 1990s, the Internet of Things (IoT) has more recently come to
Belhadi et al., 2019; Fan et al., 2015; Hazen et al., 2014, 2016a,b; describe a worldwide network of devices, or things, wireless
Monahan and Hu, 2015; Sagiroglu and Sinanc, 2013; Turner et al., transmissions, and computational capability (Atzori et al., 2010;
2014; Wang et al., 2016, 2018). Boos et al., 2013; Sarma et al., 2000), that supports communica-
tion between “people and things, and things and other things”
3.5. Blockchain (Vongsingthong and Smanchat, 2014, p. 1). These things can range
from sensors, actuators, pumps, and washing machines, to weigh-
Blockchain first emerged as a public ledger for cryptocurrency bridges, water meters, lights, or RFID tags (Atzori et al., 2010; Gubbi
transactions, where new blocks of information are added in chrono- et al., 2013; Kopetz, 2011; Kortuem et al., 2010; Wortmann and
logical order, to create a history of transactions (Swan, 2015). It has Flüchter, 2015; Xia et al., 2012), and connect physical items with
since grown to become a decentralized system, where transactions the digital world. IoT is predicted to have a significant impact on
of any kind can be stored securely and permanently which, together future supply chains, as an increasing number of sensors are fit-
with its time stamping functionality, offers significant potential ted to vehicles, containers and products, which enable them to
for improving collaboration, accuracy, transparency and security be monitored and measured more accurately (Da Xu et al., 2014;
across supply chains (Braga et al., 2018; Francisco and Swanson, Hopkins and Hawking, 2018; Zhou et al., 2012). IoT has been linked
2018; Korpela et al., 2017; Tian, 2016). The digital nature of these with a range of benefits, including an improvement in the iden-
transactions, as opposed to physical assets like cash, also has clear tification of counterfeit products, real-time tracking, predictive
links to improvements in environmental sustainability (Giungato maintenance, more accurate sales data, a reduction in over-
et al., 2017). production/underproduction, personalized marketing, biometric
payments, more accurate carbon monitoring, improved competi-
3.6. Drones tiveness and the achievement of sustainability goals (Abdel-Basset
et al., 2018; Adhya et al., 2016; Bandyopadhyay and Sen, 2011; Bibri,
‘Drone’ is a term that has come to describe unmanned aerial 2018; Khoo, 2010; Lade et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2016; Nagy et al.,
vehicles and micro aerial vehicles. A technology which was origi- 2018; Peppet, 2014; Shrouf and Miragliotta, 2015; Wortmann and
nally designed for military purposes, with assault drones being used Flüchter, 2015; Yan et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2015).
as early as World War II, drones have now emerged as a potential
solution to many supply chain challenges – such as last-mile/urban 3.8. Robotics
parcel delivery, stock taking, surveillance, the inspection of vehicles
(ships) and infrastructure (roads/bridges/tunnels/oil rigs etc.), traf- Robots are electro-mechanical machines, designed to automate
fic congestion and CO2 reduction (Appelbaum and Nehmer, 2017; or assist human tasks, either autonomously or via a set of com-
Floreano and Wood, 2015; Gregory, 2011; Irizarry et al., 2012; mands (Eckert et al., 2016; Gunasekaran et al., 2008). They are
McGuire et al., 2016; McKinnon, 2016; Nentwich and Horváth, commonplace throughout most industries, particularly in man-

6
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 4. Predicted Impact and Spend Forecast for 3D Printing.

ufacturing and warehousing (Krueger et al., 2016; Shneier and Fig. 1 illustrates the fact that the research gap is positioned
Bostelman, 2015), and are widely accepted for their effective- where three key areas of academic literature intersect, and that an
ness in conducting tasks like material handling, picking, intensive empirical study was adopted to collect new primary data regarding
and repetitive labour, welding and inspection, which can lead to current I4 technology adoption levels, preparatory measures and
increased capacity, cost reduction and safer, more sustainable, organisation size, to better understand how/where these emerging
workplaces (Brossog et al., 2015; Bugmann et al., 2011; Ganesan technologies might impact Australian supply chains.
et al., 2017; Pellegrinelli et al., 2017; Rui et al., 2014; Winfield,
2015). 4. Results

3.9. Virtual reality/augmented reality A total of 188 usable responses were collected, from participants
working in 13 different sectors, with 83 % being male and 17 %
Virtual Reality (VR) enables users to interact with realis- female. Participants spanned all age groups, and were found to be
tic electronic simulations, of three-dimensional situations, using highly experienced and qualified, with 71 % having worked in SCM
head-mounted goggles and clothing fitted with sensors (Steuer, for at least 11 years and 70 % having attained a Bachelor degree or
1992). This helps users to better understand situations and make higher (see Fig. 2). From the technologies studied, IoT was found
decisions, through the provision of a realistic visual experience, to be the most widely adopted (47 %), followed by BDA (44 %), and
without interacting with the real phenomenon (Choi et al., 2015). Robotics (29 %). The technologies currently experiencing the lowest
Augmented Reality (AR) describes the ability to integrate virtual adoption rates were Blockchain (12 %) and autonomous vehicles (11
3D objects into a real environment, in real time (Azuma, 1997), %) (Fig. 3).
and the potential of AR is starting to be realized as the technol-
ogy reaches a stage where is can create increasingly compelling 4.1. 3D printing
experiences (Billinghurst et al., 2015). Both technologies have been
recognized for their potential in training/education, product visual- Only 14 % of participating firms were found to have already
ization (Lu et al., 1999), improved picking / inventory management adopted 3D printing, only 16 % think it will have a significant/great
(Cirulis and Ginters, 2013; Ginters and Martin-Gutierrez, 2013), and impact on their organisation, and only 6% expect to make any sig-
are increasingly been investigated for their ability to create virtual nificant kind of investment over the next 10 years.
work environments, that enable meaningful interactions between The areas where it was expected to have the greatest impact
colleagues, partners and customers, regardless of their physical were in greater product customization and customer value proposi-
location (Grajewski et al., 2015; Song and Fiore, 2017). tions (55 %), reduced stock and wastage (51 %) and greater product

7
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 5. Predicted Impact and Spend Forecast for AI.

customization improved spare parts availability (50 %). Whilst almost 4.4. Big data analytics
half of the participants (49 %) weren’t currently taking any steps to
prepare for the arrival of 3D printing, the highest figure recorded Findings from this research revealed that 44 % of organisations
for any of the technologies (25 %), admitted they were taking some are already using BDA, 89 % of the participants expect this tech-
form of ad hoc/informal research or self-education (Fig. 4). nology to impact their organisation, particularly in the areas of
predictive analytics (76 %) and process optimization/cost reduction
4.2. Artificial intelligence (64 %), and 20 % expect it to attract significant or great financial
investment in their organization (Fig. 7).
Whilst only 18 % of participants are already using AI, 64 % predict BDA is also the technology that was found to be attracting the
it will have at least a moderate impact on their organisation over the most significant level of preparation, with 64 % of firms already
coming decade, with reduced inefficiencies (73 %) and improved per- taking some kind of action, with internal training & development
formance of existing tasks (67 %) the areas of greatest expectation. 25 (41 %) found to be the most common first step.
% of participating firms are already making negligible investments,
to prepare for the emergence of AI, and 9% have already hired staff
with these specific skills (Fig. 5). 4.5. Blockchain

4.3. Autonomous vehicles Only 11 % or organizations are currently using Blockchain, but
69 % expect it to have some sort of impact on their organisation,
12 % of participants indicated that they are already using and 51 % forecast some level of spend on the technology. The areas
autonomous vehicles, 84 % indicated that they were not, and 4% where Blockchain is expected to have the most significant impact,
were unsure. 18 % of participating firms were found to be conduct- over the next 10 years, is in improving supply chain collaboration (63
ing formal research into autonomous vehicles (via consultants etc.), %) and supply chain transparency (62 %).
in preparation for the arrival of autonomous vehicles on the roads, Whilst 30 % of participants expect the eventual impact of
and 19 % anticipate that their organisation will spend significantly Blockchain to be significant or great, that figure that rises sharply
in this area over the next 10 years (Fig. 6). amongst the under 35 s, where 41 % predict a significant impact.
The greatest impact of autonomous vehicles is expected to be Similarly, whilst 51 % of overall participants expect moder-
their ability to remove the need for driver wages (60 %) and improved ate/extensive financial investment in Blockchain, that figure is far
driver safety/reduced liability (58 %). more prominent in the Education and Training sector (77 %) (Fig. 8).

8
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 6. Predicted Impact and Spend Forecast for AVs.

4.6. Drones predict at least a moderate impact on their organisations over the
next 10 years (Fig. 11).
16 % of participating organisations have already adopted Drone The greatest impact for robotics was predicted in the manu-
technology, and the most significant impact is forecast to be in B2C facturing sector, where 90 % of participating firms are currently
last mile delivery (55 %) and management activities (e.g. stock taking undertaking some sort of preparatory action.
and crop surveillance – 43 %), but only 9% or participants expect
their firm to make significant investment in drones in the future
(Fig. 9). 4.9. Virtual reality/augmented reality

In readiness for the emergence of VR/AR, 27 % of participating

4.7. Internet of things firms are investing in informal research, and the most significant
impact of this technology is expected in Education & Training (59 %),
48 % of participants were found to be already using IoT tech- Product Visualization/Design (57 %) and in Creating Virtual Work Envi-
nologies, which was the highest overall adoption rate observed for ronments (48 %). 48 % predict that VR/AR will have a direct impact
any of the technologies in this study, and more informal prepara- on their firm, whilst even more expect it to have an impact on their
tory research was found as being conducted into IoT (32 %) than partners/sector more widely (59 %). 36 % of participants expect fur-
any other technology (Fig. 10). ther investment in VR/AR over the decade, but only 10 % expect
Current usage of IoT technologies was found to be particularly this investment to be significant or great, and 40 % indicate that
prevalent in the Transport (64 %) and Manufacturing (56 %) sectors, no preparation activities are currently being undertaken for the
and IoT is expected to drive the most significant improvements in emergence of this technology today (Fig. 12).
supply chain efficiency (70 %), real-time tracking (55 %) and predictive
maintenance (46 %).
4.10. Concerns

4.8. Robotics In addition to identifying the benefits of these emerging digital

technologies, the participants also expressed a number of concerns,
29 % of participants were found to be using some sort of robotic with the chief causes of unease being that of security/hacking (62 %),
technology today, 44 % forecast further investment, whilst 62 % and the loss of employment due to the technology (44 %) (Fig. 13).

9
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 7. Predicted Impact and Spend Forecast for BDA.

With data security being such a serious issue facing many orga- ting more consistent and modernised system to capture the data” and
nizations today, with instances cybercrime and data leaks receiving “the BI tools are there but they are still not in front of key decisions”.
increasingly widespread media attention, the concerns of the par- Blockchain attracted the second most comments, mainly regarding
ticipants seem justifiable. its infancy and the confusion it can cause, including: “once the hype
around crypt-currencies settles, then the true benefits of Blockchain
4.11. Most significant overall impact will be recognised” . . . “[it is a] very exciting development with poten-
tial that is not yet understood” and it is “still very much misunderstood
At the end of the survey, participants were invited to rank all in the workplace”.
nine technologies, in terms of where they see the most significant
impact on supply chains occurring in the future (awarding ’9’ to
the technology they think will have the greatest overall impact, 5. Discussion
’8’ to the technology they think will have the second most signifi-
cant impact etc.. and ’1’ to the technology they think will have the 5.1. Current adoption and forecast impact
least impact). From the heat map developed from these results,
it can be clearly seen that the technologies expected to impact IoT was found to be the most widely adopted I4 technology
Australian supply chains most significantly, are big data analyt- amongst Australian supply chain organisations, with 48 % of partic-
ics, Autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, and Internet of ipants claiming to be already using it, whilst BDA was predicted to
things. Whilst the technologies expected to impact Australian sup- have the most significant impact in the future. Key impact areas for
ply chains the least are 3D Printing and virtual/augmented reality BDA were expected to include predictive analytics and process opti-
(Fig. 14). The responses to this final question align well, and there- mization/cost reduction, in line with recent literature (Barbosa et al.,
fore validate, the attitudes that emerged towards each individual 2018; Belhadi et al., 2019), as was IoT’s capacity for improving sup-
technology earlier in the survey. ply chain efficiencies, real-time tracking and predictive maintenance
(Abdel-Basset et al., 2018; Adhya et al., 2016; Khoo, 2010).
4.12. Text commentary Significant correlation was found to be evident, in the relation-
ship between the predicted impact and current adoption rate for
The availability of free text fields throughout the survey most of the technologies, which suggests organisations are pri-
enabled the capture of interesting qualitative feedback from the oritising the adoption of technologies that will have the greatest
participants. BDA was the technology that attracted the most com- impact on their current business needs (Fig. 15).
mentary, with popular themes being : “Big Data Analytics is essential However, when plotting the relationship between the expected
for market leaders to maintain their position” . . . “our first step is get- impact and future predicted investment, the results were quite dif-

10
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 8. Predicted Impact and Spend Forecast for Blockchain.

ferent. For example, whilst 63 % of participants predicted that BDA was the most commonly adopted in Import/Export, Transport and
to have a Significant-Great impact on their organisation over the Wholesaling. Unsurprisingly, robotics was found to be the technol-
next 10 years, only 17 % expected their firms to make a Significant- ogy most widely adopted in the Manufacturing sector, and drones
Great investment in the technology. A similar pattern to this was were found to be the most commonly adopted I4 technology in the
evident for most of the technologies investigated, with results Government sector.
skewed higher for impact than expected investment, with the BDA is expected to have the greatest future impact of all the
largest investment/impact gaps possibly offering the most signifi- I4 technologies by the Consulting, Education & Training, Gov-
cant opportunities for future competitive advantage (Fig. 16). ernment, Import/Export, IT, Manufacturing, Resources, and Retail
The technology driving the highest demand for new talent sectors. The Transport and Contract Distribution sectors expect
was also BDA, with 26 % of participating organizations indicating autonomous vehicles to have the most significant future impact,
they had already hired BDA talent, underlining a need for these whilst Wholesalers expect it will come from IoT.
skills in the supply chain profession. This also aligns with pre- Consultants expect their greatest spend over the next decade
vious research, that identified BDA as one of the fastest growing to be on BDA, as do those in those from the Education & Training,
employment segments, presenting clear opportunities for univer- IT and Transport sectors, whilst participants working in Contract
sities, students/graduates and other training providers (Columbus, Distribution expect their highest level of investment to be in either
2015; Radovilsky et al., 2018). BDA or Blockchain. The Import/Export, Wholesale, Retail, Materials
Handling and Government sectors all expect to spend most signif-
icantly in IoT technology, whilst the greatest expected spend in
5.2. Adoption, impact and spend by sector Manufacturing is expected to be on Robotics.

Table 1 illustrates which I4 technologies have experienced the

highest levels of adoption to date, are predicted to have the greatest 5.3. Large firms vs small firms
impact in the future (ranked as either significant or great) and attract
the greatest levels of future spending, for each of the 13 sectors In answering RQ4, the technology adoption rates of large firms
appearing in this research. (250+) versus smaller firms (<250) were compared, and the find-
BDA was found to be the most commonly adopted technol- ings indicate that larger firms are significantly more likely to have
ogy in the Education, IT and Materials Handling sectors, whilst IoT adopted emerging I4 technologies. This validates the findings from

11
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 9. Predicted Impact and Spend Forecast for Drones.

Table 1
Highest adoption rates, predicted impact and spend areas, by sector.

Sector Highest Current Adoption Greatest Expected Impact Greatest Expected Spend

Consulting BDA/IoT (42 %) BDA (55 %) BDA (64 %)

Contract Distribution BDA/IoT (60 %) AVs (71 %) BDA/Blockchain (80 %)
Education/Training BDA (38 %) BDA (70 %) BDA (85 %)
Government Drones (60 %) BDA (44 %) IoT (60 %)
Import/Export IoT (67 %) BDA (50 %) IoT (83 %)
IT BDA (100 %) BDA (80 %) BDA (80 %)
Manufacturing Robotics (69 %) BDA (53 %) Robotics (73 %)
Materials Handling BDA (100 %) Robotics/IoT (50 %) IoT (100 %)
Others BDA (53 %) BDA (65 %) BDA (65 %)
Resources Drones/IoT (67 %) BDA (83 %) BDA/Drones (83 %)
Retail Robots (55 %) BDA (92 %) IoT (73 %)
Transport IoT (60 %) AVs (69 %) BDA (76 %)
Wholesaler IoT (60 %) IoT (33 %) IoT (80 %)

previous literature (Palvia et al., 1994; Premkumar and Roberts, smaller firms (12 %) have adopted compared to large firms (6%),
1999), and indicates that organisational size is still a critical factor exhibiting a clear downward linear relationship (Fig. 18).
in the adoption of technologies in the I4 era. When comparing the preparatory measures being taken by
The relationship between firm size and technology adoption large firms, with those of smaller firms, there was another clear
was found to be particularly strong for Robotics, VR/AR and Drones distinction. As a percentage, large firms were seen to be tak-
(Fig. 17). ing greater preparatory action than their counterparts, in all
This relationship was found to follow an increasing linear trend areas other than ‘ad hoc research.’ To illustrate this, Fig. 19
for most technologies, meaning the larger the organisation is, the clearly shows how larger firms are far more likely to be appoint-
more likely they are to have adopted new technologies, across the ing new hires, investing internally, conducting external research,
four size categories studied. However, the one exception to this and contracting out BDA and IoT development, than small
trend was found to be Blockchain, where a higher proportion of firms.

12
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 10. Predicted Impact and Spend Forecast for IoT.

However, overall, preparatory measures were found to be rela- these results act as a barometer for the current state of I4 technol-
tively low across firms of all sizes. This suggests most firms still ogy adoption more broadly. The level of detail that these findings
aren’t currently engaging their staff, or external providers, with offer, in terms of technology adoption, impact, preparedness and
regard to formal research and training. As preparation for the spending predictions, was previously lacking, and contributes new
inevitable changes, to the type of skills that will be demanded and original knowledge to the existing body of academic literature
as a result of I4 digital transformation, Rajnai and Kocsis (2017) in this field.
proposed that education systems should focus on: The findings emphasize the broader influence of I4 technolo-
gies, the impact they are making outside the traditional realms
• Strengthening science, technology, engineering, mathematics of manufacturing, and their contribution to the long-term dig-
(STEM), italization of supply chains. They will play a valuable role in
• Regularly updating curricula in higher education, and the creation of smarter, better-connected supply chain networks,
• Offering a wider set of knowledge and skills, suited to the dynam- which offer greater supply chain transparency, real-time tracking,
ically changing, complex nature of modern work roles. better forecasting, improved product customization, a reduc-
tion of inefficiencies, and an increased automation of repetitive
5.4. Significance of the findings tasks.
Finally, the importance of providing adequate training, and hir-
As Australia has been identified as having a high level of supply ing appropriately-skilled staff who can leverage the full potential
chain maturity, and is regarded as an early adopter of technology, of these technologies, has been strongly emphasised.

13
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 11. Predicted Impact and Spend Forecast for Robotics.

6. Conclusions Blockchain is the exception to this rule, where smaller firms have
been the quickest to adopt.
This empirical study has generated a number of interesting new A key contribution of this research is the identification of
insights, which extend the existing knowledge of supply chain digi- a number of significant gaps, between the expected impact of
talization, and proposes areas of opportunity where I4 technologies I4 technologies, and investment forecasts in those areas. In a
might advance current digital supply chains and service future cus- number of cases, whilst certain technologies were expected to
tomers more effectively. Whilst much contemporary research is have a significant impact on particular organisations and sec-
being conducted into the subject of I4, and the influence of digital tors, the investment predications for those technologies were
technologies in the world of manufacturing, this research gives an surprisingly low by comparison. Similarly, the extent of current
alternative insight into the current landscape from a supply chain preparatory measures were also found to be low, despite sig-
perspective. nificant digital disruption being predicted. These observations
The primary data collected during this study clearly indi- have significant practical implications for supply chain managers,
cates that most I4 technologies investigated are still very much could influence investment planning and recruitment strategies,
in the early stages of adoption, within Australian supply chain and may provide potential sources of future competitive advan-
organizations, and that impact predications and investment tage.
forecasts vary significantly across different technologies and sec- This research also extends the current body of knowledge in
tors. the emerging field of supply chain innovation, as a mechanism
Overall, in addressing RQ4, it was found that larger firms were for enhancing customer value, and underlines the impact that I4
better prepared for I4 technology adoption than smaller firms, technologies may have in maintaining competitive advantage. It
which confirms previous theories regarding organisational size identifies a number of potential sources of innovation throughout
being a factor for technology adoption rates, are still valid (Palvia the supply chain, sectors where particular technologies are pre-
et al., 1994; Premkumar and Roberts, 1999). Larger firms appear dicted to have the greatest impact, and the nature of improvements
to be more likely to adopt emerging technologies, and take more those technologies are anticipated to generate. A reduced demand
preparatory measures, which is most likely a result of having access for human labor in some areas can be expected, along with the
to greater resources, R&D budgets, in-house support, and oper- requirement for new skills in others, which can help inform future
ational capacity to experiment with new technologies. However, education and training needs. Similarly, these findings contribute

14
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 12. Predicted Impact and Spend Forecast for VR/AR.

Fig. 13. Concerns regarding the Emerging Digital Technologies.

Fig. 14. Most Significant Overall Impact of Emerging I4 Technologies.

valuable new real-world data on opportunities and potential limi- Arlbjørn et al. (2011)’s concept of innovations within the supply
tations for I4 technologies, which support future academic theory chain network (ISCN). Similarly, if technologies enable supply chains
building. to function in new ways that generate value, this aligns with
The interrelationships between these advances in technology, Linton (2017)’s Emerging Technology Supply Chains (ETSC) field
with improvements in process and network structure, support of research.

15
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 15. Level of Current Adoption Rate vs Impact Expected.

Fig. 16. Significant Impact Expected vs Significant Spend Expected.

Fig. 17. Technology adoption rates of large firms vs small firms (%).

16
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Fig. 18. Linear relationship for technology adoption rates of large firms vs small firms.

Fig. 19. Comparing typical preparatory measures of large firms vs small firms.

The author believes that the objectives of this research, to cre- The technologies investigated in this paper will play critical
ate new knowledge and gain an accurate depiction of current roles in the post-COVID recovery, and it is hoped that these timely
adoption rates, preparatory measures and impact predications for findings can inform both government policy makers and industry
I4 technologies amongst Australian supply chain organisations, practitioners, as they prepare their new digital roadmaps for the
and the role that organisational size plays in this, have been challenging years ahead.
achieved. It is hoped that the findings make a noteworthy contri-
bution to a significant field, have practical implications for both CRediT authorship contribution statement
academic researchers and industry practitioners, and encourage
further debate and investigations into this fascinating topic.
One key limitation of this study is its focus on a small geograph- John L. Hopkins: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal-
ical region. To address this issue, the researcher is partnering with ysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing
a number of other academic institutions to extend this investiga- - review & editing, Visualization, Project administration.
tion outside of Australia, to Europe, Asia and North America, where
the they hope to conduct a ‘compare and contrast’ analysis of I4 Declaration of Competing Interest
technology adoption and usage, across different parts of the world.
The emergence of COVID-19 in 2020 has significantly impacted
global supply chains, restricting the movement of goods and forc- There are no conflicts of interest to report.
ing many to staff to work from home, in an attempt to slow the
spread of the pandemic. As a reaction to this, supply chain firms Acknowledgement
have had to adapt and find alternative ways of operating, including
the digitalization of existing processes.
An acceleration of interest in digitalization and automation The author would like to acknowledge the Supply Chain &
is extremely likely, as companies seek ways to increase their Logistics Association of Australia (SCLAA), and in particular former
resilience to the catastrophic threats they have seen pandemics VIC/TAS President Charles Edwards, for their invaluable support
can have on supply chains, by automating more tasks and processes and assistance throughout this project.
traditionally conducted by humans.

17
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Appendix A. Supplementary data Chesbrough, H., Rosenbloom, R.S., 2002. The role of the business model in capturing
value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off
companies. Ind. Corp. Change 11 (3), 529–555.
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in Chiarello, F., Trivelli, L., Bonaccorsi, A., Fantoni, G., 2018. Extracting and mapping
the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020. industry 4.0 technologies using wikipedia. Comput. Ind. 100, 244–257.
103323. Chisnall, P.M., 1993. Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement.
J. Mark. Res. Soc. 35 (4), 392–393.
Choi, S., Jung, K., Noh, S.D., 2015. Virtual reality applications in manufacturing indus-
tries: past research, present findings, and future directions. Concurr. Eng. 23 (1),
References 40–63.
Cirulis, A., Ginters, E., 2013. Augmented reality in logistics. Procedia Comput. Sci. 26,
Abbott, J.D., Gaffar, A., Bisht, M., 2017. Autonomous trucking: the interplay between 14–20.
design and business constraints. Paper Presented at the 2017 IEEE SmartWorld, Cisco, 2018. Digital dividend or digital divide? In: Australian Digital Readiness Index
Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced & Trusted Computed, Scalable 2018.
Computing & Communications, Cloud & Big Data Computing, Internet of People Columbus, L., Retrieved from 2015. Where Big Data Jobs Will Be In 2016. Forbes
and Smart City Innovation (SmartWorld/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCom/IOP/SCI). https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2015/11/16/where-big-data-
Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Mohamed, M., 2018. Internet of Things (IoT) and jobs-will-be-in-2016/#76bceaae608c.
its impact on supply chain: a framework for building smart, secure and efficient Cox, M., Ellsworth, D., 1997. Application-controlled demand paging for out-of-core
systems. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 86, 614–628. visualization. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Visu-
Abdelkafi, N., Pero, M., 2018. Supply chain innovation-driven business models: alization’97.
exploratory analysis and implications for management. Bus. Process. Manag. Crespi, G., Criscuolo, C., Haskel, J., 2007. Information Technology, Organisational
J. 24 (2), 589–608. Change and Productivity.
Adhya, S., Saha, D., Das, A., Jana, J., Saha, H., 2016. An IoT based smart solar pho- Da Xu, L., He, W., Li, S., 2014. Internet of things in industries: a survey. IEEE Trans.
tovoltaic remote monitoring and control unit. Paper Presented at the 2016 2nd Ind. Inf. 10 (4), 2233–2243.
International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, Energy & Communication Dalmarco, G., Barros, A.C., 2018. Adoption of industry 4.0 technologies in supply
(CIEC). chains. In: Innovation and Supply Chain Management. Springer, pp. 303–319.
Agarwal, R., Prasad, J., 1997. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived De Martino, M., Errichiello, L., Marasco, A., Morvillo, A., 2013. Logistics innovation
voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decis. Sci. 28 (3), in seaports: an inter-organizational perspective. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 8,
557–582. 123–133.
Agarwal, R., Prasad, J., 1998. The antecedents and consequents of user perceptions Deloitte, 2018. Overcoming barriers to NextGen supply chain innovation. In: The
in information technology adoption. Decis. Support Syst. 22 (1), 15–29. MHI Annual Industry Report.
Akbari, M., Hopkins, J., 2016. The changing business landscape in Iran: establishing Deloitte, 2019. Success Personified in the Fourth Industrial Revolution; Four Lead-
outsourcing best practices. Oper. Supply Chain Manage. 9 (3), 184–197. ership Personas for an Era of Change and Uncertainty. Deloitte Insights.
Almada-Lobo, F., 2015. The Industry 4.0 revolution and the future of Manufacturing Eckert, V.H., Curran, C., Bhardwaj, S.C., 2016. Tech breakthroughs megatrend: how to
Execution Systems (MES). J. Innov. Manage. 3 (4), 16–21. prepare for its impact. PwC 19th Annual Global CEO Survey, 1–14, 19(January).
Appelbaum, D., Nehmer, R.A., 2017. Using drones in internal and external audits: an Evans, J.R., Mathur, A., 2005. The Value of Online Surveys. Internet research.
exploratory framework. J. Emerg. Technol. Account. 14 (1), 99–113. Fan, S., Lau, R.Y., Zhao, J.L., 2015. Demystifying big data analytics for business intel-
Arlbjørn, J.S., Paulraj, A., 2013. Special topic forum on innovation in business net- ligence through the lens of marketing mix. Big Data Res. 2 (1), 28–32.
works from a supply chain perspective: current status and opportunities for Fayezi, S., Zutshi, A., O’Loughlin, A., 2015. How Australian manufacturing firms per-
future research. J. Supply Chain. Manag. 49 (4), 3–11. ceive and understand the concepts of agility and flexibility in the supply chain.
Arlbjørn, J.S., de Haas, H., Munksgaard, K.B., 2011. Exploring supply chain innovation. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 35 (2), 246–281.
Logist. Res. 3 (1), 3–18. Fernández-Caramés, T.M., Fraga-Lamas, P., 2019. A review on the application of
Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G., 2010. The internet of things: a survey. Comput. Netw. blockchain to the next generation of cybersecure industry 4.0 smart factories.
54 (15), 2787–2805. IEEE Access 7, 45201–45218.
Azuma, R.T., 1997. A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Floreano, D., Wood, R.J., 2015. Science, technology and the future of small
Environ. 6 (4), 355–385. autonomous drones. Nature 521 (7553), 460–466.
Baldwin, R., Lopez-Gonzalez, J., 2015. Supply-chain trade: a portrait of global pat- Francisco, K., Swanson, D., 2018. The supply chain has no clothes: technology adop-
terns and several testable hypotheses. World Econ. 38 (11), 1682–1721. tion of blockchain for supply chain transparency. Logistics 2 (1), 2.
Bandyopadhyay, D., Sen, J., 2011. Internet of things: applications and challenges in Frommberger, L., Schill, K., Scholz-Reiter, B., 2012. Artificial Intelligence and Logis-
technology and standardization. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 58 (1), 49–69. tics.
Barbosa, M.W., Vicente, Adl.C., Ladeira, M.B., Oliveira, M.P.Vd., 2018. Managing sup- Galliers, R.D., 1990. Choosing appropriate information systems research approaches:
ply chain resources with Big Data Analytics: a systematic review. Int. J. Logist. a revised taxonomy. Paper Presented at the In Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.
21 (3), 177–200. 2.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., Sambrook, S., 2009. Towards a multidisciplinary definition Ganesan, P., Sajiv, G., Leo, L.M., 2017. Warehouse management system using micro-
of innovation. Manage. Decis. 47 (8), 1323–1339. processor based mobile robotic approach. Paper Presented at the Science
Barreto, L., Amaral, A., Pereira, T., 2017. Industry 4.0 implications in logistics: an Technology Engineering & Management (ICONSTEM), 2017 Third International
overview. Procedia Manuf. 13, 1245–1252. Conference on.
Bechtsis, D., Tsolakis, N., Vlachos, D., Srai, J.S., 2018. Intelligent Autonomous Vehi- Gebler, M., Uiterkamp, A.J.S., Visser, C., 2014. A global sustainability perspective on
cles in digital supply chains: a framework for integrating innovations towards 3D printing technologies. Energy Policy 74, 158–167.
sustainable value networks. J. Clean. Prod. 181, 60–71. Gilchrist, A., 2016. Industry 4.0: the Industrial Internet of Things. Springer.
Belhadi, A., Zkik, K., Cherrafi, A., Sha’ri, M.Y., 2019. Understanding big data analytics Gill, A.Q., Phennel, N., Lane, D., Phung, V.L., 2016. IoT-enabled emergency information
for manufacturing processes: insights from literature review and multiple case supply chain architecture for elderly people: the Australian context. Inf. Syst. 58,
studies. Comput. Ind. Eng. 137, 106099. 75–86.
Bibri, S.E., 2018. The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: an analytical frame- Ginters, E., Martin-Gutierrez, J., 2013. Low cost augmented reality and RFID appli-
work for sensor-based big data applications for environmental sustainability. cation for logistics items visualization. Procedia Comput. Sci. 26, 3–13.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 38, 230–253. Giungato, P., Rana, R., Tarabella, A., Tricase, C., 2017. Current trends in sustainability
Billinghurst, M., Clark, A., Lee, G., 2015. A survey of augmented reality. Found. of bitcoins and related blockchain technology. Sustainability 9 (12), 2214.
Trends® Hum. Interact. 8 (2–3), 73–272. Glas, A.H., Kleemann, F.C., 2016. The impact of industry 4.0 on procurement and
Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I., 2016. The social dilemma of autonomous supply management: a conceptual and qualitative analysis. Int. J. Bus. Manage.
vehicles. Science 352 (6293), 1573–1576. Invention 5 (6), 55–66.
Boos, D., Guenter, H., Grote, G., Kinder, K., 2013. Controllable accountabilities: the Grajewski, D., Górski, F., Hamrol, A., Zawadzki, P., 2015. Immersive and haptic edu-
Internet of Things and its challenges for organisations. Behav. Inf. Technol. 32 cational simulations of assembly workplace conditions. Procedia Comput. Sci.
(5), 449–467. 75, 359–368.
Bozarth, C., Handfield, R., 2008. Operations and supply chain management. Strategies Greenblatt, J.B., Saxena, S., 2015. Autonomous taxis could greatly reduce
21, 22. greenhouse-gas emissions of US light-duty vehicles. Nat. Clim. Change 5 (9),
Braga, J., Silva, J.N., Endo, P.T., Ribas, J., Omar, N., 2018. Blockchain to improve security 860.
and knowledge in inter-agent communication and collaboration over a restrict Gregory, D., 2011. From a view to a kill: drones and late modern war. Theory Cult.
domains of the internet infrastructure. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1805.05250. Soc. 28 (7–8), 188–215.
Brettel, M., Friederichsen, N., Keller, M., Rosenberg, M., 2014. How virtualization, GSCI, 2017. New Supply Chain Technology Best Practices - the Application of New
decentralization and network building change the manufacturing landscape: Technology in the Physical Supply Chain. The Global Supply Chain Institute,
an Industry 4.0 Perspective. Int. J. Mech. Ind. Sci. Eng. 8 (1), 37–44. University of Tennessee, Knoxville (April).
Brossog, M., Bornschlegl, M., Franke, J., 2015. Reducing the energy consumption of Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., Palaniswami, M., 2013. Internet of Things (IoT): a
industrial robots in manufacturing systems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 78 (5–8), vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Gener. Comput. Syst.
1315–1328. 29 (7), 1645–1660.
Bugmann, G., Siegel, M., Burcin, R., 2011. A role for robotics in sustainable develop- Gunasekaran, A., Lai, K.-h., Cheng, T.E., 2008. Responsive supply chain: a competitive
ment? IEEE (Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng.) Africon, 13–15. strategy in a networked economy. Omega 36 (4), 549–564.

18
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Hagen, P.E., Midtgaard, O., Hasvold, O., 2007. Making AUVs truly autonomous. Paper Lom, M., Pribyl, O., Svitek, M., 2016. Industry 4.0 as a part of smart cities. Paper
Presented at the OCEANS 2007. Presented at the 2016 Smart Cities Symposium Prague (SCSP).
Hartley, J.L., Zirger, B.J., Kamath, R.R., 1997. Managing the buyer-supplier interface Lorenz, M., Rüßmann, M., Strack, R., Lueth, K.L., Bolle, M., 2015. Man and Machine in
for on-time performance in product development. J. Oper. Manag. 15 (1), 57–70. Industry 4.0: How Will Technology Transform the Industrial Workforce Through
Hazen, B.T., Boone, C.A., Ezell, J.D., Jones-Farmer, L.A., 2014. Data quality for data 2025. The Boston Consulting Group, 2.
science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply chain management: an intro- Lotakov, I., Retrieved from 2016. The Essential Eight Technologies: How to Prepare
duction to the problem and suggestions for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. for Their Impact.
Econ. 154, 72–80. Lozano-Perez, T., 2012. Autonomous Robot Vehicles. Springer Science & Business
Hazen, B.T., Skipper, J.B., Boone, C.A., Hill, R.R., 2016a. Back in business: operations Media.
research in support of big data analytics for operations and supply chain man- Lu, Y., 2017. Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications and open research
agement. Ann. Oper. Res., 1–11. issues. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 6, 1–10.
Hazen, B.T., Skipper, J.B., Ezell, J.D., Boone, C.A., 2016b. Big Data and predictive ana- Lu, S.-Y., Shpitalni, M., Gadh, R., 1999. Virtual and augmented reality technologies
lytics for supply chain sustainability: a theory-driven research agenda. Comput. for product realization. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 48 (2), 471–495.
Ind. Eng. 101, 592–598. Lyall, A., Mercier, P., Gstettner, S., 2018. The death of supply chain management.
Heard, B.R., Taiebat, M., Xu, M., Miller, S.A., 2018. Sustainability implications of con- Harv. Bus. Rev., 1 (June).
nected and autonomous vehicles for the food supply chain. Resour. Conserv. Malhotra, N.K., 2006. Questionnaire design and scale development. In: The Hand-
Recycl. 128, 22–24. book of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses, and Future Advances., pp. 83–94.
Hillmer, U., 2009. Technology Acceptance in Mechatronics: the Influence of Identity Manavalan, E., Jayakrishna, K., 2019. A review of Internet of Things (IoT) embedded
on Technology Acceptance. Springer Science & Business Media. sustainable supply chain for industry 4.0 requirements. Comput. Ind. Eng. 127,
Hofmann, E., Rüsch, M., 2017. Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as future 925–953.
prospects on logistics. Comput. Ind. 89, 23–34. McGuire, M., Rys, M.J., Rys, A., Retrieved from 2016. A Study of How Unmanned
Hopkins, J., Hawking, P., 2018. Big data analytics and IoT in logistics: a case study. Aircraft Systems Can Support the Kansas Department of Transportation’s Efforts
Int. J. Logist. Manag. 29 (2), 575–591. to Improve Efficiency, Safety, and Cost Reduction.
Hopkins, J., Sohal, A., 2019. An investigation into talent shortages in the Australian McKinnon, A.C., 2016. The possible impact of 3D printing and drones on last-mile
procurement profession. In: Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. logistics: an exploratory study. Built Environ. 42 (4), 617–629.
Howells, R., Retrieved from 2018. Is Your Supply Chain Prepared For The Perfect McKinsey, 2017. Artificial Intelligence Is Poised to Disrupt the Workplace. What Will
Storm Of Innovation? Forbes.com https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2018/11/ the Company of the Future Look Like—and How Will People Keep up? McKinsey
28/is-your-supply-chain-prepared-for-the-perfect-storm-of-innovation/amp/. Quarterly.
Irizarry, J., Gheisari, M., Walker, B.N., 2012. Usability assessment of drone technology McMurray, A., 2004. Research: a Commonsense Approach. Cengage Learning,
as safety inspection tools. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. (ITcon) 17 (12), 194–212. Australia.
Ivan Su, S.-I., Gammelgaard, B., Yang, S.-L., 2011. Logistics innovation process revis- Monahan, S.T., Hu, M., 2015. Sharing supply chain data in the digital era. MIT Sloan
ited: insights from a hospital case study. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41 Manage. Rev. 57 (1), 95.
(6), 577–600. Monczka, R.M., Trent, R.J., Callahan, T.J., 1993. Supply base strategies to maximize
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B., 2019. The impact of digital technology and Industry supplier performance. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 23 (4), 42–54.
4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (3), Montgomery, K., 2018. A blueprint for successful supply chain innovation. Supply
829–846. Chain Quart. (Quarter 2).
Jokioinen, E., Poikonen, J., Hyvonen, M., Kolu, A., 2016. Remote and Autonomous Munksgaard, K.B., Stentoft, J., Paulraj, A., 2014. Value-based supply chain innovation.
Ships-the Next Steps. AAWA Position Paper, Rolls-Royce, London. Oper. Manag. Res. 7 (3–4), 50–62.
Kache, F., Seuring, S., 2017. Challenges and opportunities of digital information at Nagy, J., Oláh, J., Erdei, E., Máté, D., Popp, J., 2018. The role and impact of industry 4.0
the intersection of Big Data Analytics and supply chain management. Int. J. Oper. and the internet of things on the business strategy of the value chain—the case
Prod. Manage. 37 (1), 10–36. of Hungary. Sustainability 10 (10), 3491.
Kavin, L., Narasimhan, R., 2017. An investigation of innovation processes: the role of Nentwich, M., Horváth, D.M., 2018. The vision of delivery drones. TATuP Zeitschrift
clock speed. Paper Presented at the Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal. für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 27 (2), 46–52.
Khajavi, S.H., Partanen, J., Holmström, J., 2014. Additive manufacturing in the spare Novoa, C., Storer, R., 2009. An approximate dynamic programming approach for
parts supply chain. Comput. Ind. 65 (1), 50–63. the vehicle routing problem with stochastic demands. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 196 (2),
Khoo, B., 2010. RFID-from tracking to the internet of things: a review of devel- 509–515.
opments. Paper Presented at the 2010 IEEE/ACM Int’l Conference on Green Oesterreich, T.D., Teuteberg, F., 2016. Understanding the implications of digitisation
Computing and Communications & Int’l Conference on Cyber, Physical and Social and automation in the context of Industry 4.0: a triangulation approach and
Computing. elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Comput. Ind. 83,
Kilpatrick, J., 2020. COVID-19: managing supply chain risk and disruption. In: COVID- 121–139.
19 Collection, Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/risk/ Pacchini, A.P.T., Lucato, W.C., Facchini, F., Mummolo, G., 2019. The degree of readi-
articles/covid-19-managing-supply-chain-risk-and-disruption.html. ness for the implementation of Industry 4.0. Comput. Ind. 113, 103125.
Kim, B., 2000. Coordinating an innovation in supply chain management. Eur. J. Oper. Palvia, P., Means Jr., D.B., Jackson, W.M., 1994. Determinants of computing in very
Res. 123 (3), 568–584. small businesses. Inf. Manag. 27 (3), 161–174.
Kopetz, H., 2011. Internet of things. In: Stankovic, J.A. (Ed.), Real-Time Systems Series, Papadopoulos, T., Baltas, K.N., Balta, M.E., 2020. The use of digital technologies by
Vol. 25, 2 ed. Springer, New York, pp. 307–323. small and medium enterprises during COVID-19: implications for theory and
Korpela, K., Hallikas, J., Dahlberg, T., 2017. Digital supply chain transformation practice. Int. J. Inf. Manage., 102192.
toward blockchain integration. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 50th Pellegrinelli, S., Pedrocchi, N., Tosatti, L.M., Fischer, A., Tolio, T., 2017. Multi-robot
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. spot-welding cells for car-body assembly: design and motion planning. Robotics
Kortuem, G., Kawsar, F., Sundramoorthy, V., Fitton, D., 2010. Smart objects as building Comput. Integr. Manuf. 44, 97–116.
blocks for the internet of things. IEEE Internet Comput. 14 (1), 44–51. Peppet, S.R., 2014. Regulating the internet of things: first steps toward managing
Krueger, V., Chazoule, A., Crosby, M., Lasnier, A., Pedersen, M.R., Rovida, F., et al., 2016. discrimination, privacy, security and consent. Tex. L. Rev. 93, 85.
A vertical and cyber–physical integration of cognitive robots in manufacturing. Petrick, I.J., Simpson, T.W., 2013. 3D printing disrupts manufacturing: how
Proc. IEEE 104 (5), 1114–1127. economies of one create new rules of competition. Res. Technol. Manage. 56
Lade, P., Ghosh, R., Srinivasan, S., 2017. Manufacturing analytics and industrial inter- (6), 12–16.
net of things. IEEE Intell. Syst. 32 (3), 74–79. Pfeiffer, S., 2015. Effects of Industry 4.0 on Vocational Education and Training. Insti-
Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.-G., Feld, T., Hoffmann, M., 2014. Industry 4.0. Bus. Inf. tute of Technology Assessment, Vienna.
Syst. Eng. 6 (4), 239–242. Pfohl, H.-C., Yahsi, B., Kurnaz, T., 2015. The impact of industry 4.0 on the supply
Lau, H.-S., Lau, A.H.-L., 1994. Coordinating two suppliers with offsetting lead time Chain. Paper Presented at the Innovations and Strategies for Logistics and Supply
and price performance. J. Oper. Manag. 11 (4), 327–337. Chains: Technologies, Business Models and Risk Management. Proceedings of
LaValle, S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., Hopkins, M.S., Kruschwitz, N., 2011. Big data, the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL), Vol. 20.
analytics and the path from insights to value. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 52 (2), 21. Piccarozzi, M., Aquilani, B., Gatti, C., 2018. Industry 4.0 in management studies: a
Lee, J., Bagheri, B., Kao, H.-A., 2015. A cyber-physical systems architecture for indus- systematic literature review. Sustainability 10 (10), 3821.
try 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manuf. Lett. 3, 18–23. Power, D.J., Sohal, A.S., 2002. Implementation and usage of electronic commerce in
Lee, C., Lv, Y., Ng, K., Ho, W., Choy, K., 2018. Design and application of Internet of managing the supply chain: a comparative study of ten Australian companies.
things-based warehouse management system for smart logistics. Int. J. Prod. Benchmarking Int. J. 9 (2), 190–208.
Res. 56 (8), 2753–2768. Premkumar, G., Roberts, M., 1999. Adoption of new information technologies in rural
Lerch, C., Gotsch, M., 2015. Digitalized product-service systems in manufacturing small businesses. Omega 27 (4), 467–484.
firms: a case study analysis. Res. Technol. Manage. 58 (5), 45–52. Radovilsky, Z., Hegde, V., Acharya, A., Uma, U., 2018. Skills requirements of business
Linton, J.D., 2017. Emerging Technology Supply Chains. Elsevier. data analytics and data science jobs: a comparative analysis. J. Supply Chain
Litman, T., 2017. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions. Victoria Trans- Oper. Manage. 16 (1), 82.
port Policy Institute Victoria, Canada. Rajnai, Z., Kocsis, I., 2017. Labor market risks of industry 4.0, digitization, robots
Liu, Y., Han, W., Zhang, Y., Li, L., Wang, J., Zheng, L., 2016]. An Internet-of-Things and AI. Paper Presented at the 2017 IEEE 15th International Symposium on
solution for food safety and quality control: a pilot project in China. J. Ind. Inf. Intelligent Systems and Informatics (SISY).
Integr. 3, 1–7.

19
J.L. Hopkins Computers in Industry 125 (2021) 103323

Rayna, T., Striukova, L., 2014. The impact of 3D printing technologies on business Sun, Z., Zhang, Y., 2018. Using drones and 3D modeling to survey tibetan architectural
model innovation. In: Digital Enterprise Design & Management. Springer, pp. heritage: a case study with the multi-door stupa. Sustainability 10 (7), 2259.
119–132. Swan, M., 2015. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Rebolledo, C., Halley, A., Nagati, H., 2009. The effects of absorptive capacity on opera- Tan, K.H., Zhan, Y., Ji, G., Ye, F., Chang, C., 2015. Harvesting big data to enhance sup-
tional performance within the context of customer-supplier relationships. Paper ply chain innovation capabilities: an analytic infrastructure based on deduction
Presented at the Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal. graph. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 165, 223–233.
Rehnberg, M., Ponte, S., 2018. From smiling to smirking? 3D printing, upgrading and Tian, F., 2016. An agri-food supply chain traceability system for China based on RFID
the restructuring of global value chains. Glob. Netw. 18 (1), 57–80. & blockchain technology. Paper Presented at the Service Systems and Service
Rengier, F., Mehndiratta, A., Von Tengg-Kobligk, H., Zechmann, C.M., Unterhin- Management (ICSSSM), 2016 13th International Conference on.
ninghofen, R., Kauczor, H.-U., Giesel, F.L., 2010. 3D printing based on imaging Tjahjono, B., Esplugues, C., Ares, E., Pelaez, G., 2017. What does industry 4.0 mean to
data: review of medical applications. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 5 (4), supply chain? Procedia Manuf. 13, 1175–1182.
335–341. Troudi, A., Addouche, S.-A., Dellagi, S., Mhamedi, A., 2018. Sizing of the drone delivery
Ried, J., 2017. Australia Well-placed to Embrace Change and Test New Technologies. fleet considering energy autonomy. Sustainability 10 (9), 3344.
New Daily (October). Turner, V., Gantz, J.F., Reinsel, D., Minton, S., 2014. The digital universe of opportuni-
Rui, G., Feng, Z., Lei, C., Jun, Y., 2014. A mobile robot for inspection of overhead trans- ties: rich data and the increasing value of the internet of things. In: IDC Analyze
mission lines. Paper Presented at the Applied Robotics for the Power Industry the Future., pp. 16.
(CARPI), 2014 3rd International Conference on. Van Meldert, B., De Boeck, L., 2016. Introducing Autonomous Vehicles in Logistics:
Russell, S.J., Norvig, P., 2016. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson a Review From a Broad Perspective.
Education Limited, Malaysia. Vendrell-Herrero, F., Bustinza, O.F., Parry, G., Georgantzis, N., 2017. Servitization,
Rüßmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P., Harnisch, digitization and supply chain interdependency. Ind. Mark. Manag. 60, 69–81.
M., 2015. Industry 4.0: the Future of Productivity and Growth in Manufacturing Von Hippel, E., 2007. The sources of innovation. In: Das Summa Summarum des
Industries. Boston Consulting Group, pp. 9. Management. Springer, pp. 111–120.
Russom, P., 2011. Big data analytics. In: TDWI Best Practices Report., pp. 40, fourth Vongsingthong, S., Smanchat, S., 2014. Internet of things: a review of applications &
quarter, 19. technologies. Suranaree J. Sci. Technol. 21 (4), 1–37.
Sagiroglu, S., Sinanc, D., 2013. Big data: a review. Paper Presented at the Collaboration Waller, M.A., Fawcett, S.E., 2013. Data science, predictive analytics, and big data:
Technologies and Systems (CTS), 2013 International Conference on. a revolution that will transform supply chain design and management. J. Bus.
Sarma, S., Brock, D.L., Ashton, K., 2000. The networked physical world. In: Auto-ID Logist. 34 (2), 77–84.
Center White Paper MIT-AUTOID-WH-001. Wang, C., Hu, Q., 2017. Knowledge Sharing in Supply Chain Networks: Effects of
Saucedo-Martínez, J.A., Pérez-Lara, M., Marmolejo-Saucedo, J.A., Salais-Fierro, T.E., Collaborative Innovation Activities and Capability on Innovation Performance.
Vasant, P., 2018. Industry 4.0 framework for management and operations: a Technovation.
review. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 9 (3), 789–801. Wang, G., Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W., Papadopoulos, T., 2016. Big data analytics in
Schallock, B., Rybski, C., Jochem, R., Kohl, H., 2018. Learning Factory for Industry 4.0 logistics and supply chain management: certain investigations for research and
to provide future skills beyond technical training. Procedia Manuf. 23, 27–32. applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 176, 98–110.
Schoenherr, T., Speier-Pero, C., 2015. Data science, predictive analytics, and big data Wang, Y., Kung, L., Byrd, T.A., 2018. Big data analytics: understanding its capabili-
in supply chain management: current state and future potential. J. Bus. Logist. ties and potential benefits for healthcare organizations. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
36 (1), 120–132. Change 126, 3–13.
Schrauf, S., Berttram, P., 2016. Industry 4.0: how digitization makes the supply chain Weller, C., Kleer, R., Piller, F.T., 2015. Economic implications of 3D printing: market
more efficient, agile, and customer-focused. In: Strategy&., pp. 1–32. structure models in light of additive manufacturing revisited. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
Schröder, J., Heid, B., Neuhaus, F., Kässer, M., Klink, C., Tatomir, S., 2018. Fast forward- 164, 43–56.
ing last-mile delivery – implications for the ecosystem. In: Travel, Transport, and Winfield, A.F., 2015. Robots with internal models: a route to self-aware and hence
Logistics and Advanced Industries. safer robots. In: The Computer After me: Awareness and Self-awareness in Auto-
Shneier, M., Bostelman, R., 2015. Literature Review of Mobile Robots for Manu- nomic Systems. World Scientific, pp. 237–252.
facturing. National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Wortmann, F., Flüchter, K., 2015. Internet of things. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 57 (3),
Commerce. 221–224.
Shrouf, F., Miragliotta, G., 2015. Energy management based on Internet of Things: Xia, F., Yang, L., Wang, L., Vinel, A., 2012. Internet of things. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 25
practices and framework for adoption in production management. J. Clean. Prod. (9), 1101–1102.
100, 235–246. Yan, B., Yan, C., Ke, C., Tan, X., 2016. Information sharing in supply chain of agricul-
Simmons, G., Palmer, M., Truong, Y., 2013. Inscribing value on business model inno- tural products based on the Internet of Things. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116 (7),
vations: insights from industrial projects commercializing disruptive digital 1397–1416.
innovations. Ind. Mark. Manag. 42 (5), 744–754. Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed. Sage: Thousand
Song, J., Fiore, S.M., 2017. VR what we eat: guidelines for designing and assessing Oaks, CA.
virtual environments as a persuasive technology to promote sustainability and Zhang, Y., Zhang, G., Wang, J., Sun, S., Si, S., Yang, T., 2015. Real-time information
health. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics capturing and integration framework of the internet of manufacturing things.
Society Annual Meeting. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 28 (8), 811–822.
Stachová, K., Papula, J., Stacho, Z., Kohnová, L., 2019. External partnerships in Zhou, H., Liu, B., Wang, D., 2012. Design and research of urban intelligent trans-
employee education and development as the key to facing industry 4.0 chal- portation system based on the internet of things. In: Internet of Things., pp.
lenges. Sustainability 11 (2), 345. 572–580.
Steuer, J., 1992. Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J.
Commun. 42 (4), 73–93.

20