The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-4323.htm

Identification of critical success Industry 4.0

technology and
factors for leveraging Industry 4.0 research
agenda
technology and research agenda:
a systematic literature review 457
using PRISMA protocol Received 4 March 2022
Revised 19 July 2022
Accepted 10 October 2022
Poonam Sahoo
School of Management, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Mangalore,
India, and
Pavan Kumar Saraf and Rashmi Uchil
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Mangalore, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to identify existing and common critical success factors adapted for
implementing Industry 4.0 technology, which is essential to survive in the vulnerability, uncertainty,
complexity and ambiguity (VUCA) environment by using systematic literature review (SLR) methodology with
the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and content analysis
strategy.
Design/methodology/approach – The SLR methodology with the PRISMA and content analysis strategy
adapted to review 74 papers in peer-reviewed academic journals and industry reports published from 2014
to 2021.
Findings – Based on a review of relevant literature, two theoretical contributions have been added to the
literature on Industry 4.0. First, this review reveals that 35 (47%) out of total 74 studies assessing the Industry
4.0 implementation in the manufacturing industry, the service industry can also create value through Industry
4.0 implementation, with a lot of potential to increase productivity, which literature has not explicitly focused
on. Second, this paper proposes the 12 most common critical factors (training and development, organizational
culture, top management support, organizational structure, innovation capability, technological infrastructure,
security system, standardization of procedures, financial resources, communication and cooperation, change
management and governance) that can be considered as the significant critical factors for successful
implementation of Industry 4.0.
Originality/value – The novelty part related to methodological perspective by using the PRISMA approach
for systematic review, which cannot be found extensively in existing literature in the context of the Industry 4.0
phenomenon to analyze critical factors.
Keywords Industry 4.0, Critical factors, Organizational factors, Implementation, Systematic literature review,
PRISMA
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
The fourth industrial revolution, which arrived at the beginning of the 21st century is the
advent of cyber-physical systems (CPS), Internet of things (IoT), internet of services, smart
factories, and cloud computing; it is ongoing and is popularly called as Industry 4.0 (Hermann
et al., 2016; Kagermann et al., 2013; Liao et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2018). In the manufacturing
industry, Industry 4.0 is defined as an integration of CPS and the IoT which can have
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
implications on value creation, business development, work organization and downstream Administration
businesses (Kagermann et al., 2013; Kiel et al., 2017). The commencement of Industry 4.0 Vol. 16 No. 3, 2024
pp. 457-481
entails considerable changes for organizations and societies and is contributing to the world © Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-4323
having a perception of being a place characterized by vulnerability, uncertainty, complexity DOI 10.1108/APJBA-03-2022-0105
APJBA and ambiguity (VUCA) bringing transformational changes in the entire system and has a
16,3 multifaceted impact on countries, companies, industries and society as a whole (Bennett and
Lemoine, 2014; Schwab, 2016). Implementation of Industry 4.0 is a complex process that
consists of an integration of horizontal, vertical and end-to-end integration and will depend
upon the synergies between the company and different members from the different functional
areas (Wang et al., 2016; M€ uller, 2019a, b). In particular, during the transformation process
majority of the organizations struggle to encapsulate their Industry 4.0 vision and strategy
458 (Erol et al., 2016), fear of uncertainty and expectation of Industry 4.0 requirements
(Balasingham, 2016), societal acceptance of Industry 4.0 technologies and its implications in
connotations with the environmental outcomes (Adebanjo et al., 2021).
In recent years, there were many generic literature review studies conducted for exploring
future avenues on Industry 4.0 (Belinski et al., 2020; Kamble et al., 2018; Pagliosa et al., 2019;
Piccarozzi et al., 2018; Schneider, 2018; Sony and Naik, 2019a, b) and on the implementation,
readiness and adoption of Industry 4.0 (Çınar et al., 2021; Pacchini et al., 2019; Sung and Kim,
2021). A few studies also focused on the barriers to the adoption of Industry 4.0 and
opportunities (Raj et al., 2020), implementation challenges and opportunities (Bajic et al.,
2021), critical factors and environmentally sustainable manufacturing, and sustainable
supply chain (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018; Luthra and Mangla, 2018), factors and criteria
affecting the Industry 4.0 tendency in the production sector (Kiraz et al., 2020), challenges and
success factors in the implementation of Industry 4.0 in the shipbuilding industry (Carvajal,
2018), challenges and critical success factors for industrial augmented reality (AR) in support
of Industry 4.0 (Masood and Egger, 2019). A critical investigation of these studies indicates
either the critical success factors focused on Industry 4.0 implementation and sustainable
supply chain (Luthra and Mangla, 2018), critical success factors, which focused on the
shipbuilding sector (Carvajal, 2018). In the abovementioned articles, literature on critical
success factors is limited for the successful implementation of Industry 4.0 and it is difficult to
summarize the results, because of the different methodologies and focuses of the study (Pozzi
et al., 2021). Industries that are trying to integrate and implement Industry 4.0 into their work
processes need to identify and analyze important critical factors (Nimawat and Gidwani,
2021). This justifies the imperative need to identify the existing and common critical factors
and recommended a gap towards the area of research for the critical factors concerning
Industry 4.0 implementation in an organization (Raj et al., 2020; Stentoft et al., 2019).
Therefore, this study aims to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to critically
examine the previous literature and aims to answer the research questions: what are the
existing critical success factors adapted for the implementation of Industry 4.0? and
identification of most common critical factor and further research direction in implementing
Industry 4.0. The study is distinctive for several reasons.
Firstly, the novelty part related to methodological perspective by using the PRISMA
approach for systematic review, which cannot be found extensively in existing literature in
the context of the Industry 4.0 phenomenon. Specifically, we adopt a PRISMA approach
(Moher et al., 2009) to conduct systematic reviews and a flow diagram to bring transparency
and accuracy of literature reviews. The reason behind the selection of PRISMA (Moher et al.,
2009) over the other existing protocol lies in the comprehensiveness and its use in several
disciplines like medical, tourism, management and education (Grant and Booth, 2009;
Pahlevan-Sharif et al., 2019; Mays et al., 2005; Pickering and Byrne, 2014), which has the
potential to bring consistencies across reviews. Secondly, this paper aims to provide an
overview of the reported Industry 4.0 implementation critical success factors in the relevant
literature for the discovery of the most common critical success factors.
The remaining section of the study is organized in this sequence: Section 2 describes the
theoretical background of this study with the research questions. Section 3 entails the SLR
methodology. Section 4 presents the findings and results. Based on these findings and results,
Section 5 then entails an articulated discussion in line with the research questions of this Industry 4.0
study. Finally, Section 6 concludes this paper with the contributions, implications, limitations technology and
and avenues of future research.
research
agenda
2. Theoretical background
One of the biggest challenge industries going to face while leveraging Industry 4.0
technologies are exploring new business models. The introduction of Industry 4.0 brings 459
manifold opportunities for organizations to work with advanced technologies, however, the
decision to invest, adapt, strategize, implement, innovate and change lies in the crucial forces
that drive digital adoption (Lee et al., 2021). Most of the organizations seems to be perplexed
and very few organizations understand the concept of Industry 4.0 (Sony and Naik, 2019b).
For the successful implementation of any project and management activities, critical factors
are the crucial attributes that influence the successful completion of a project (Milosevic and
Patanakul, 2005). Hence, understanding the critical success factors for the implementation of
the Industry 4.0 project and initiatives is significant. Some studies focused on critical success
factors for leveraging Industry 4.0 technologies from the context of small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) (Dassisti et al., 2017; Moeuf et al., 2018), critical success factors for
implementing Industry 4.0 and environmentally sustainable manufacturing and 14.0
towards sustainability of supply chains (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018; Luthra et al., 2020),
critical factors which were focused on shipping industries (Carvajal, 2018), Sony and Naik
(2020) reviewed 84 articles and identified 10 critical success factors, which will ensure
organizations sustainability during implementation. In the abovementioned articles,
literature on critical success factors is limited for the successful implementation of
Industry 4.0 and it is difficult to summarize the results, although organizations have similar
strategic goals for obtaining competitive advantage, coordination and resource allocation
effectively among others, organizations perceive critical factors differently even though
critical factors contribute to a high possibility for successful implementation of Industry 4.0
(Bongo et al., 2020). To perform better in Industry 4.0 era, industry and academia researchers
have been continuously attempting to determine the significant critical factors for the
successful implementation of Industry 4.0. The authors like Bongo et al. (2020), Stocker et al.
(2021) are of the view that knowledge and identification of certain critical success factors can
increase the chance of successful implementation of Industry 4.0. Thus, in this purview, the
most significant research questions that the review paper aims to answer is as follows:
RQ1. What are the existing critical success factors adapted for the Industry 4.0
implementation?
Next, in the current business environment, disruptive technologies of Industry 4.0 hold keys
to providing smart facilities that are digitally integrated. Some authors, proposed that
strategy, leadership and culture are key factors in the transformation journey of Industry 4.0
(Keller et al., 2014; Moeuf et al., 2018; Narula et al., 2020), and author Colli et al. (2019) found
that technology, connectivity, competencies and value are significant factors for Industry 4.0
implementation, likewise, data governance, legal aspects and collaboration and teamwork
(Bhatia and Kumar, 2020), Kiraz et al. (2020) identified market and customer access as the
most influencing criteria for Industry 4.0 tendency, data management strategy, the smart
factory system and strategic vision as the key factor in the transition process (Bolatan and
G€ozl€
u, 2019). The implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies depends on the critical
strategic choices and managers make such choices on the limited option based on the limited
resource’s framework (Salam, 2019). In a resource constraints context, it is essential to
identify critical success factors to prioritize the most important resources (Mittal and
Sangwan, 2014).
APJBA Grounded on the previous analysis, critical factors could be useful for better
16,3 understanding how organizations can adopt and implement Industry 4.0 technology.
Therefore, before making such a critical strategic decision, organizations have to identify
significant critical factors associated with the implementation of Industry 4.0 in common
(Schumacher et al., 2016). To ensure the benefits of Industry 4.0 technology, managers tend to
focus on a few significant critical factors to be executed (Bhatia and Kumar, 2020). Therefore,
finding the most common critical factor is a research gap as highlighted by different authors
460 (Moeuf et al., 2020; Pozzi et al., 2021; Sony and Naik, 2019a; Vrchota et al., 2020). Identification
of critical factors would help organizations, managers towards successful implementation of
Industry 4.0 initiatives and the organizations and managers need not have to focus on all the
critical factors instead, they can encapsulate some of the most common significant factors.
Hence, the second research question of this study is as follows:
RQ2. What are the most common critical factors adopted among the existing critical
factors?
Industry 4.0 is essentially relevant to productions, operations, manufacturing, supply chain
management and other industries as a technology revolution and there is a need to identify
the future avenues and means to adopt Industry 4.0 technology. Leveraging Industry 4.0
technology successfully is a challenge for industrial practitioners. Hence, future researchers
can use research directions to develop an implementation framework, as critical factors act as
a guiding framework for the successful implementation of Industry 4.0 in an organization
(Sony and Naik, 2019a; Bongo et al., 2020). The majority of the organizations in the Industry
4.0 transition process will encounter sudden changes in the organizational structures,
processes, products and as a result determination of critical success factors, realizing their
effects and understanding the strategies will be challenging parts for organizations. Thus,
many academicians and researchers provide future directions about how the critical factors
will play a significant role in the successful implementation of Industry 4.0. Therefore, the
third research question of this study is as follows:
RQ3. How could future avenues of research in Industry 4.0 be shaped?

3. Methodology
This paper seeks to address three independent research questions through a SLR, a SLR is
more pertinent than a traditional narrative literature review. The aim of the SLR is to compile
existing research based on evidence, regardless of disciplinary location, boundaries and
language that are pertinent to the subject under inquiry (Thorpe et al., 2005). The SLR
methodology approach is explicitly considered in this study to meticulously summarizes the
result in response to research questions (Tranfield et al., 2003). Additionally, an SLR–based
study addresses the present state of the art on a particular research topic and it also suggests
further future research (Frank and Hatak, 1993). Thereon, to contribute to the existing body
of knowledge on critical success factors for the implementation of Industry 4.0, a systematic
review was deployed using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
analysis (PRISMA) approach adapted from Moher et al. (2009). For evidence-based reporting
standards, PRISMA is an effective tool for critical appraisal. In this context, Systematic
review relates to comprehensive and coherent search followed by a reasonable and
predefined approach for selecting and analyzing the pertinent contributions, which should
later be synthesized critically (Petticrew and Roberts, 2008). For this study, a comprehensive
literature search was undertaken to identify papers specifically published until the end of
2021. This SLR has been designed rigorously and it is replicable hence, can be updated in
the future with the state of art findings on critical success factors in the implementation
of Industry 4.0. The protocol was developed in advance to report the analysis method and Industry 4.0
inclusion criteria. The methodology adopted was supported by text analysis, as it is a technology and
systematic technique often preferred in social science, in which certain text (code)is
summarized in different categories (Elo and Kyng€as, 2008). The scrutinizing of the extant
research
literature on the topic related to Industry 4.0 critical factors was done, which bring about 74 agenda
articles, with the period between 2014 and 2021. To search for the articles we utilized Scopus,
Google Scholar, Emerald, ProQuest, Sage, MDPI, Science direct, EBSCO Host, Taylor and
Francis and Industry reports spanning over 10 publishers and databases, as shown in 461
Table 1. There were six search terms within the title, abstract, and keywords of the articles on
the significance of critical factors on Industry 4.0 implementation (“Industry 4.0’’OR “fourth
industrial revolution” OR “14.0”) AND (“critical factors” OR “success factors” OR “enabling
factors”).
The systematic review considers both inclusion and exclusion criteria shown in Table 2.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria include language, timeline and literature type. Articles
published in magazines were considered to be less rigorous from an academic point of view,
hence this was the reason to exclude magazine articles from the study and only English
language articles were reviewed based on the inclusion criteria. However, industry reports
and conference proceedings, and book chapters have been considered as inclusion criteria.
For data analysis, the title, abstract, keywords, journal name, authors’ names and year of
publication of the searched records were exported to an MS Excel spreadsheet. Two
independent authors screened the paper title and abstract independently and papers that
were systematic and published after the year 2021 were discarded based on the inclusion
criteria. Then two independent reviewers performed an eligibility assessment by carefully
screening the full text of papers that were screened in the first screening process to assess
their fit with the inclusion criteria. During this stage, disagreements between reviewers were
resolved through arbitration by the other two reviewers. Data that were exported to an MS
Excel spreadsheet was modified by adding the items, for which data were sought for data
management. From the review of a total of 149 full-text articles, 74 were included for
qualitative synthesis review Figure 1. To conduct the PRISMA approach two round of
elimination were done, which led to 74 articles that entails this review results and discussion.
Out of these 74 full-text articles range from 2014 to 2021,33(45%) were qualitative and
41(55%) quantitative. The first round of elimination classifies the articles into conceptual,
theoretical and empirical studies. The second round of elimination was based on reading the
full text, preserving articles that focus on the research objectives of the systematic review.

Search Scopus, Google scholar, Emerald, ProQuest, Sage, MDPI, Science direct, EBSCO Host,
boundaries Taylor and Francis and Industry reports Table 1.
Keyword search Industry 4.0, Fourth Industrial Revolution, 14.0, Critical Success Factor, Success Factor Search boundaries and
Source(s): Researcher’s own illustration keyword search

Inclusion Exclusion

Literature type Indexed journals, book chapters, Industry reports, Magazine articles, non-indexed
conference proceedings journals
Language English Non-English Table 2.
Timeline 2014 to April 2021 Before the year 2014 Inclusion and
Source(s): Researcher’s own illustration exclusion criteria
APJBA
16,3
Identification
Records idenƟfied through Additional records identified
database searching through other sources
n = (560) n–(28)

462
Records after duplication removed
n–(278)
Screening

Records screened Records excluded

n = (246) n = (32)
Eligibility

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility Full-text articles excluded, with

n–(149) reasons
n–(75)
Included

Studies included in qualitative

synthesis review
n = (74)
Figure 1.
PRISMA diagram
Source(s): Moher et al., 2009

Here, the papers which did not provide Industry 4.0 critical factors were excluded. The
finding or results obtained follow in the next section.

4. Results
The findings of the SLR show a total of 74 articles, which entails three significant
contributions: a list of existing critical factors adapted for the implementation of Industry 4.0,
the most common critical factor from the existing critical factors, and last future studies in
connotation with Industry 4.0 implementation. These three findings are further described in
this section.

4.1 Identification of existing critical factors for the implementation of Industry 4.0
The review of all 74 articles reveals existing critical success factors for the successful
implementation of Industry 4.0. The first column of Table 3 below displays all the articles
Author(s) (year) Critical success factors Area of research

Rane and Narvel Top management support, clear vision and strategic alignment, forward-thinking, change management, technical Project management
(2021) capability, open innovation, predictive analytics, cooperation, infrastructure, changes implementation
Dikhanbayeva Human, cultural, technical, governmental and financial Digital projects
et al. (2021)
Arowoiya et al. Innovations, advancement in design and device, developments in mobile computing, tracking device, collaboration Construction projects
(2021) with ICT, portability, and accessibility of device, social acceptance, government policies, implementation of BIM,
awareness, availability equipment, low-cost training
Shayganmehr et al. Logistics, infrastructure, transparency, information quality and learning Humanitarian supply
(2021) chain segment
Vrchota et al. (2021) Plans and deadline, finance, employees and flexibility quality, leadership and experiences, communication and Sustainability projects
cooperation
Nimawat and Cost, organizational, innovation, environmental Manufacturing
Gidwani (2021) company
Tripathi and Gupta Environment, human resources, infrastructure, ecological sustainability, innovation capability, cybersecurity and Multiple industries
(2021) consumers satisfaction
Roblek et al. (2021) Innovation, organizational culture Manufacturing SMEs
Fan et al. (2021) Leadership, organizational culture, knowledge absorptivity, knowledge integration, customer integration Multiple machinery
industries
Pietruszka-Ortyl Organizational culture, knowledge acquisition, dissemination, sharing and disclosure Energy sector
et al. (2021)
Nenadal et al. Organizational sustainability, b2b relationship, customer loyalty Production
(2021) organizations
Lekan et al. (2021) Corporate identity, vertical integration, technology and skill transfer, support of small-scale enterprise, industrial Construction industry
productivity, stakeholders’ competitions, corporate growth, technological knowledge
Hossain and An integrated system, logistic management, innovation and technological aspects, competitive, social aspects, Health care sector
Thakur (2021) sustainable practices, institutional practices, economic factors
Naveed et al. (2021) Strategic management, compatibility, data integrity, system support organizational culture, top management support, Multiple industries
relative advantages, competitive pressure, project budget, and benefit, vendor support, complexity, regulatory support,
functionality, data privacy, reliability, scalability, perceived risk, network latency, organizational size, cloud security
organizational behavior, cloud enterprise resource planning essentials, technological advancements, innovative ideas,
environmental impact

(continued )
research

463
agenda
technology and
Industry 4.0

for the implementation

of Industry 4.0
Existing critical factors
Table 3.
 16,3

464

Table 3.
APJBA
Author(s) (year) Critical success factors Area of research

Murthy et al. (2021) Leadership, organization agility, strategic vision, stakeholder expectations, the collaboration of horizontal and vertical Multiple industries
supply chains, project management, human resources capability, business models, organization structure, change
management, communication strategy, business investment, organizational governance
Ali and Johl (2021) Top management commitment, sqm, employee training, and learning, human resources management, people Multiple industries
management, employee empowerment, operation focus, employee knowledge & education, knowledge management,
reward recognition, problem-solving, shared vision, employee suggestions, quality assurance, organization trust
Hakim et al. (2021) Competition, market requirements, government regulations and authority, top management support and commitment, Automotive industries
training, effective communication, skilled employees, standardized part numbers, a standard for the internet of things
components, service flexibility, and quality, personal privacy and invasion, data security, technology standard,
technology partnership, formation cost, maintenance cost integration cost, cost-effectiveness, financial situation,
training cost, readability, compatibility, technology infrastructure, on-time delivery, product quality, information
quality, customer support, work quality, observe ability, equipment interface, interoperability, customer focus, project
management, mutual trust
Chau et al. (2021) Customer focus, supplier quality management, IT quality, process integration, leadership Manufacturing supply
chain
Choudhury et al. Redesign organization, sales, and operations strategies, strategic sourcing techniques, smart manufacturing, Oil and gas, Information
(2021) warehouse management, logistics capability, point of sale analysis, financial services integration, redressal system, technology. financial
upskill labor, lead time reduction, customer satisfaction services, beauty,
eCommerce, and others
Sharma et al. (2021) Transparency, interoperability, virtualization, service orientation, modularity, decentralization, process integration, Manufacturing supply-
time to market, profits, revenue sharing, reduced labor cost, productivity, reduced logistics cost, reduced inventory chain
cost, reduced cycle time, smart product design, reduced waste, reduced emission, green brand image, energy savings,
opportunities for green initiatives, reduced environmental accidents, effects, lean production flow, reduced penalty for
environmental disaster, collaborations, local markets, community development, price protection, youth development,
improved ergonomics, social regulatory factors, on- invasive interactions, top management support, training, and
education, providing adequate knowledge
Xing et al. (2021) Business model, business strategy, cybersecurity, technology infrastructure, vertical and horizontal integration, digital Manufacturing
resources, leadership and management, skills, workforce readiness and change management, supply chains, industries
innovation culture, process and people

(continued )
Author(s) (year) Critical success factors Area of research

Stocker et al. (2021) Openness to communication, openness to cooperation, innovation friendliness, participatory culture, involvement in Wafer production
development, digitalization competencies, new ways to work, acquire multipliers, communication digitalization
strategy, digitalization counter support change, investigate a problem, joint elaboration, understanding work practice,
align digital and work practices
Adebanjo et al. Legal, ability to reach consensus, cooperation, employees skill, multi-disciplinary team, reliability of the machine, data- Multiple industries
(2021) sharing networks, stability of the internet, comprehensive security system, an ecosystem to adopt industry 4.0, the
collaboration between parties, education programs, cyber security, data integration, IT connectivity, compatibility
between software, vertical and horizontal integration, strategic cooperation, leadership, open communication,
standards and technological infrastructure, culture changes, improved skills
Machado et al. Top management commitment, employee empowerment, internal innovation process, data-centred solutions, MSMEs
(2021) interdisciplinary and holistic integration, customer and supplier integration, governmental pressures
Vereycken et al. Employee participation Multiple companies
(2021)
Marcon et al. (2021) Social, e-learning, standardization, employee engagement, employee retention, training, employees’ skill, visualization, Manufacturing
workplace accommodation, binding process, quality of production, operations management, continuous improvement, companies
improving internal logistics, organization, labor standard, on the job training, job rotation, task integration,
environment
Antony et al. (2021) Employee adaptability, technology readiness, organizational culture, business model, leadership, organization Manufacturing, Service,
strategy, employee reward and recognition, digital transformation, smart product and services, digitalization of supply SMEs, and LEs
chains
Pozzi et al. (2021) Top management support, team structure, statement of a project plan, statement of clear goal, training Manufacturing
companies
Bhatia and Kumar Organizational leadership, data governance, collaboration and teamwork, legal aspects, it infrastructure, external Automotive industry
(2020) support, involvement of workforce, strategic integration, financial aspects
Sony and Naik Organizational strategy, top management support, employee’s adaptability, smart product, and services, digitize Multiple organizations
(2020) supply chain, digitize organization, change management, project management, cyber security, sustainability
Moeuf et al. (2020) Employee training, alignment along a hierarchical line, the importance of communication, continuous improvement SMEs
strategy
Mir et al. (2020) EMNEs, governance, utility, capital and manpower, capital, software, data, hardware E-Government projects
Nwaiwu et al. Strategy, competitiveness, human resources, operations, organizational fit, industry 4.0 process management model SME manufacturing
(2020)

(continued )
research
Industry 4.0

465
agenda
technology and

Table 3.
 16,3

466

Table 3.
APJBA
Author(s) (year) Critical success factors Area of research

Bongo et al. (2020) Employee qualification, infrastructure, the receptiveness of new technology, financial support, strong enforcement of Multiple industries
intellectual property rights self-regulatory environment, complexity management.
Surianarayanan Nature of management, leadership competencies, employee empowerment, training, skill competencies, productivity Manufacturing SMEs
and Menkhoff issues
(2020)
Gui et al. (2020) Relative advantage and top management support MSMEs
Rampersad (2020) Problem-solving, critical thinking, communication, teamwork Education
Alaloul et al. (2020) Political, economic, social, technological, environmental, legal, security Construction industry
Sharma and Time to market, business agility, accessibility, competitive advantage, service cost, resistance to technology Manufacturing sector
Sehrawat (2020)
Erro-Garces and Public initiatives, the role of multi-national and educational institutions Multiple industries
Aranaz-N un
~ez
(2020)
Lai et al. (2020) Organization strategy, top management support, culture and structure, past experience, staffing and learning, project Manufacturing
management, planning and control, finance and resource availability, technology maturity and vendor support company
Zheng et al. (2020) 14.0 knowledge level, hr involvement, training, perceived benefits, business involvements Aquaculture industry
Veile et al. (2020) Corporate culture, personnel, company organization, safety and security, Industry 4.0 solutions, integration of Manufacturing
technology, financial feasibility industries
Masood and Egger User acceptance, system configuration, organizational fit Augmented reality
(2019) projects
Rejikumar et al. Process standardization, training, and development, regulatory framework, protected control points, agile environment Healthcare, Retail,
(2019) Logistics, Smart office,
and Oil and gas industry
Schumacher et al. Technology, products, customers and partners, value creation process, data and information, corporate standards, Manufacturing
(2019) employees, strategy, and leadership enterprises
Sader et al. (2019) Relationship management, decision making, improvement, process approach, employee engagement, leadership, Production
customer focus
Bolatan and G€ozl€
u Strategic vision, organization structure, horizontal integration, vertical integration, technology infrastructure, smart Electronics, Automobile
(2019) factories, big data management, qualified workforce structure, security, big data management and others

(continued )
Author(s) (year) Critical success factors Area of research

Arcidiacono et al. IT infrastructure, the existence of standards, specialized human resources, complexity link with technologies, financial Automotive industry
(2019) constraints, top management commitment, organizational culture, employee acceptance, collaboration, price pressure,
competitive environment, relation with technology suppliers, institutional factors
Stachova et al. Employee education, training, and development, cooperation, engagement Multiple companies
(2019)
Horvath and Szabo Data collection, production process, machine to machine interaction, traceability, human intervention, preventive SMEs
(2019) maintenance, visualization, augmented reality, warehousing and logistics
Kopp et al. (2019) Workplace innovation, socio-technical Logistics and process
industry
Agostini and Employee skill, employee training, social capital, organizational support, continuous improvement, lean management,
Filippini (2019) ICT tools, JIT suppliers, JIT clients, information integration, open innovation
Da Silva et al. Data management, infrastructure, real-time data, connectivity, knowledge and decision making, system architecture, Manufacturing
(2019) advanced robotics, cybersecurity, traceability, logistics automation, technical support, collaborative tools, knowledge, industries
training programs, collaborative organizations, centralized management, innovation culture, employee commitment,
implementation strategy, economic viability, financial resources, project team, internal and external communication,
research and development, top management support, knowledge, customer focus
de Sousa Jabbour Management leadership, organizational change readiness, top management commitment, strategic alignment, training Manufacturing
et al. (2018) and capacity building, empowerment, teamwork and implementation, organizational culture, communication, project industries
management, national culture and regional differences
Yeh and Chen Technology infrastructure and integration, relative advantage, organization readiness, top management support, Manufacturing
(2018) managerial obstacle, competitive pressure, market trends, trading partner, government policy, machine cost, labor cost, industries
material cost.
Alkhater et al. Service quality, trust, security, privacy concerns IT
(2018)
Ghobakhloo (2018) Strategic management, marketing strategy, human resource strategy, IT maturity strategy, smart manufacturing Manufacturing
strategy, smart supply chain management strategy industries
M€
uller et al. (2018) Strategy, operations, environment and people, competitiveness and future viability, employee qualification, Manufacturing
organizational fit, implementation industries
Lin et al. (2018) IT maturity, technological incentives, perceived benefits, company size and nature, external pressure, government Automotive industry
policies

(continued )
research
Industry 4.0

467
agenda
technology and

Table 3.
 16,3

468

Table 3.
APJBA
Author(s) (year) Critical success factors Area of research

Arnold et al. (2018) Relative advantage, perceived challenges, compatibility, firm size, top management support, absorptive capacity, Manufacturing industry
competition, environmental uncertainty, perceived outside support
Hamzeh et al. (2018) Technological, complexity and interfaces, performance quality, finance, resources prioritization, planning, supplier’s Manufacturing
regulation, market, and customers company
Biegler et al. (2018) Strategy, technology, innovation capacity, ecosystem support, skill and change management Manufacturing
company
Shinohara et al. Data management, operating system speed, infrastructure, real-time data, connectivity, knowledge and decision Manufacturing
(2017) making, system architecture, advanced robotics, cybersecurity, traceability, logistics automation, technical support, company
collaborative tools, knowledge, training programs, agility in decisions, collaborative organizations, economic and profit
analysis, centralized management, innovation culture, employee commitment, implementation strategy, availability of
resources, economic viability, financial resources, project team, internal and external communication, research and
development, project team, top management support, knowledge, customer focus, integration of suppliers,
governmental aspects,
Santos et al. (2017) Organizational, technological, innovation, operational Manufacturing
industries
Pereira and Smart products, smart factories, business models, customers Manufacturing
Romero (2017) industries
Fernandez- Structured data, standards, continuous adaption, decision-making skills, research and education knowledge, training Mechanical engineering
Miranda et al. sector
(2017)
Kang et al. (2016) High quality and workforce management Manufacturing
company
Hecklau et al. (2016) Employee qualification Manufacturing
company
Balasingham Lack of financial resources, skills mismatch employees, IT infrastructure, maturity stage, firm size, reluctance to Manufacturing
(2016) change industries
Shamim et al. Organizational structure, HR practices, knowledge Manufacturing sector
(2016)
Schumacher et al. Strategy, leadership, customers, products, operations, culture, people, governance, technology Manufacturing sector
(2016)
Schmidt et al. Production time, level of automation, mass customization, idle data, technology use Production sector
(2015)
Lasi et al. (2014) Flexibility, decentralization Manufacturing
Source(s): Researcher’s own illustration
author with years, the second column shows the critical success factors pooled from the Industry 4.0
study, and the third column shows the focused area of research. technology and
research
4.2 Identification of most common critical factors among the existing critical factors agenda
An in-depth analysis of all the existing critical factors using text mining reveals findings of
the twelve most common critical factors that are frequently occurring in the existing
literature training and development, organizational culture, top management support, 469
organizational structure, innovation capability, technological infrastructure, security
system, standardization of procedures, financial resources, communication, and
cooperation, change management and governance. As shown in Table 4, the maximum
occurrence of critical factors is training and development. Next, the second-highest in
number is organizational culture followed by the third common factor is top management
support and the fourth common factor is organizational structure and innovation
capability. The remaining factors proposed are almost equal in terms of occurrence. Thus,
overall combining these 12 most common critical factors showcase the commonality of
factors used in the existing literature for successful implementation of Industry 4.0 through
critical factors.

5. Discussion
The literature review consists of three research questions. This section leads to a discussion
of three research questions mentioned in the introduction part.
RQ1. What are the existing critical success factors adapted for the Industry 4.0
implementation?
The result of the SLR conducted has led to the identification of existing critical factors in the
Industry 4.0 transition. Identifying the existing critical factors has an important viewpoint for
leveraging and implementing Industry 4.0 technology in organizations. It is observed that

No. CSFs Author(s) (year) Occurrence

1 Training and Moeuf et al. (2020), Stachova et al. (2019), Zheng et al. (2020) 20
development
2 Organizational culture de Sousa Jabbour et al. (2018), Schumacher et al. (2016) 19
3 Top management Ali and Johl (2021), Hakim et al. (2021), Machado et al. (2021), 18
support Naveed et al. (2021), Pozzi et al. (2021), Rane and Narvel (2021),
Sony and Naik (2019a)
4 Organization structure Bolatan and G€ozl€ u (2019), Murthy et al. (2021) 17
5 Innovation’s capability Biegler et al. (2018), Hecklau et al. (2016), Santos et al. (2017) 16
6 Technological Raj et al. (2020), Rejikumar et al. (2019), Shinohara et al. (2017) 14
infrastructure
7 Security system Naveed et al. (2021), Tripathi and Gupta (2021) 13
8 Standardization of Arcidiacono et al. (2019), Rejikumar et al. (2019) 12
procedures
9 Financial resources Alekseev et al. (2018), Choudhury et al. (2021), Dikhanbayeva 12
et al. (2021), Hakim et al. (2021)
10 Communication and Adebanjo et al. (2021), Hakim et al. (2021), Moeuf et al. (2020), 12
cooperation Mohd Salleh et al. (2021), Stocker et al. (2021)
11 Change management Murthy et al. (2021), Sony and Naik (2020) 11 Table 4.
12 Governance Shinohara et al. (2017), Yeh and Chen (2018) 11 Pooling of most
Source(s): Researcher’s own illustration common critical factors
APJBA most of the Industry 4.0 critical factors were identified during the period from 2018 to 2021.
16,3 There is an increasing trend in critical factor studies since 2018. The number of publications
held during 2018 was nine. The next two consecutive years (2019–2020) show an increasing
trend in publications. In 2021, there were 28 publications on the topic shown in Table 3.
In literature, every paper blend with different aspects of sustainability aspects (de Sousa
Jabbour et al., 2018; Hossain and Thakur, 2021; Nenadal et al., 2021; Sony and Naik, 2020;
Tripathi and Gupta, 2021; M€ uller, 2019a, b), some critical factors purely dedicated to
470 organizational and managerial aspects (Erol et al., 2016; Nwaiwu et al., 2020; Stachova et al.,
2019), some critical factors consists of human, cultural, technical, governmental, legal and
financial aspects (Adebanjo et al., 2021; Dikhanbayeva et al., 2021; Mir et al., 2020;
Schumacher et al., 2019). Alaloul et al. (2020) conducted a study relating to challenges and
opportunities for stakeholders in the construction industry and recommended social factors
as the most influential compare to economical, technological and political factors. Hence, it is
revealed that there exists a different perception that lacks common ground as far as critical
factors for the implementation of Industry 4.0 (Narula et al., 2020), few pieces of literature have
proposed critical factors on a common basis (Bolatan and G€ozl€ u, 2019; Dikhanbayeva et al.,
2021; Sony and Naik, 2020). Critical factor as open innovation is considered as one of the
commonly used elements in maturity models to assess the firm’s Industry 4.0 readiness
(Schumacher et al., 2016). Hence, the number of critical factors is more, therefore it is evident
from the literature that all CSFs do not perform in isolation, there are some relations with
CSFs, which extend support to achieve the final objectives of the firm (Gardas et al., 2019;
Rana et al., 2013). In terms of geographical regions, this SLR was from 26 different nations.
Out of the developed economies, Germany contributed 19 studies, Italy three, the UK three
studies, Austria three studies, Australia three studies, Hungary two studies, Spain two
studies, France two studies and Poland one study, Denmark one study, one study from New
Zealand. On the contrary, among the emerging economies ten studies from India, Brazil four
studies, three studies from China, two studies from Nigeria, Iran, Malaysia, and one studies
from the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Turkey, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi
Arabia, Kazakhstan and two studies from multiple countries. In summary, the large number
of studies focusing on critical factors for Industry 4.0 implementation conducted by Germany
followed by India and, Brazil reveals that 40 (54%) out of 74 studies were conducted in
developed economies. However, Industry 4.0 has the potential to contribute to emerging
economies and there is a research gap concerning developing nations to implement Industry
4.0. Last, in terms of industry–wise, this review reveals that 35 (47%) out of total 74 studies
assessing the Industry implementation and adoption in manufacturing industries (de Sousa
Jabbour et al., 2018; Fernandez-Miranda et al., 2017; M€ uller, 2019a, b; Shinohara et al., 2017)
shown in Table 3, whereas very few studies focus on other sectors (Antony et al., 2021;
Bienhaus and Haddud, 2018; Mariani and Borghi, 2019). Unlike, manufacturing industries,
sectors like healthcare, oil and gas industry, smart office, logistics and retail service
businesses can also create value through Industry 4.0 implementation, with a lot of potential
involved to increase productivity, which literature has not explicitly focused on (Rejikumar
et al., 2019). By conducting a literature analysis, it was concluded that studying the existing
critical factors is a relatively new and emerging area to be focused and there would be a
greater number of publications in near future. In summary Table 3 answers the first research
question on the existing critical factors for Industry 4.0 transition.
RQ2. What are the most common critical factors adopted among the existing critical
factors?
For the second research question above, this review investigated the most common critical
factors based on using text mining. As highlighted above in Table 4 out of existing critical
factors, 12 factors were found to be the most common critical factors extracted from existing
critical factors proposed as training and development, organizational culture, top Industry 4.0
management support, organizational structure, innovation capability, technological technology and
infrastructure, security system, standardization of procedures, financial resources,
communication and cooperation, change management and governance. These critical
research
factors were pooled in terms of the number of times they occur using text mining. Given the agenda
results, organizational/managerial factors hold the highest importance in the adoption of
Industry 4.0 organizational and managerial facets like training and development,
organizational culture, support from top management, organizational structure, 471
communication, and cooperation and change management (Mariani and Borghi, 2019;
Piccarozzi et al., 2018; Schneider, 2018). Management approaches and practices are ignored in
the context of Industry 4.0, which is indeed a predominant issue and understanding the
organizational and managerial dynamics become necessary for leveraging Industry 4.0
technologies (Agostini and Filippini, 2019; Bajic et al., 2021; M€ uller, 2019a, b; Shamim et al.,
2016). The fifth critical factor, which is identified is, innovation capability, the author Hecklau
et al. (2016) focused on the development of a competency model for effectively managing the
human resources during the transition process of Industry 4.0 and Shamim et al. (2016) are on
the view that Industry 4.0 require smart manufacturing and smart business operations,
which requires innovation, which is dependent on people learning and knowledge
management. Critical factors like technological infrastructure, security issues, governance
and standardization are also needed to support technological systems to adopt Industry 4.0
technologies. During the transformation process from physical assets to virtual assets in the
form of industrial data or intellectual property, the security issue is one of the major factors to
be considered. One of the key requirements for hardware integration in industrial agents in
CPS contexts is standardization for acceptance (Raj et al., 2020; Rejikumar et al., 2019;
Tripathi and Gupta, 2021). Lastly, in countries with developing economies, the development
of Industry 4.0 depends on financial strategy and financial support from the government for
the implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies, which is one of the factors for the success of
Industry 4.0 (Alekseev et al., 2018; Hecklau et al., 2016). So, managers can encapsulate some of
the most common and significant factors in the transition process based on common ground.
In summary Table 4 answers the second research question of this systematic literature study.
In this SLR, the third research question for future research collected from articles focusing
on the role of critical factors to adopt Industry 4.0 technologies is shown in Table 5 in
chronological order of publication.
RQ3. How could future avenues of research in Industry 4.0 be shaped through certain
critical factors?

6. Conclusions
Given the status and relevance of leveraging and implementing Industry 4.0 technology
successfully, this SLR seeks to answer three research questions by adopting a SLR using
PRISMA: (1) What are the existing critical success factors adapted for the Industry 4.0
implementation? (2) What are the most common critical factors among the existing critical
factors? And (3) How could future avenues of research in Industry 4.0 be shaped through
certain critical factors? The present study contributes in five ways. First, it summarizes the
existing critical factors for leveraging Industry 4.0 technologies from the period 2014–2021
with the focus area of research, the result reveals that sectors like education, healthcare, oil
and gas industry, logistics and retail have been ignored, which can create value through
Industry 4.0 implementation with a lot of potential involved to increase productivity and
there is need to categorize all the critical factors to have a better understanding of CSFs for
implementation of Industry 4.0. In studying the existing critical factors, the major challenge
APJBA Questions and research directions Author(s) (year)
16,3
How do critical factors play a significant role in Industry 4.0 process using Balasingham (2016)
quantitative study and comparing the results to other companies?
Future research seeks to prioritize the critical factor and develop an organizational Shinohara et al. (2017)
maturity assessment tool for digital manufacturing implementation
How does the role of critical factors affect the integration of Industry 4.0 and de Sousa Jabbour et al.
472 sustainable manufacturing? (2018)
How do certain critical factors have a significant impact on performance Bhatia and Kumar (2020)
outcomes?
Future research should focus on operational benefits, tactical benefits and Moeuf et al. (2020)
strategic benefits at new market prospects
How some of the success factors of Industry 4.0 can also be risk factors and their Vrchota et al. (2021)
relationship with sustainability?
How qualitative approach can be employed to understand socio-technical Marcon et al. (2021)
dimensions to adopt Industry 4.0 technologies?
Future studies can be extended by focusing on which factor ought to be focused Nimawat and Gidwani
based on different methodologies and different nation-states using DEMATEL, (2021)
TOPSIS, and interpretive structural modelling
Future research can empirically analyse and validate the quality 4.0 critical Ali and Johl (2021)
success factors in the actual Industrial context
Table 5. Future research might compare Industry 4.0 implementation and status in Dikhanbayeva et al.
Future research different domains like mining, metallurgy, oil and gas industry, manufacturing (2021)
directions for Industry and agriculture
4.0 implementation Source(s): Researcher’s own illustration

is that many academicians consider only factors based on the nature of business operations
for example manufacturing-based operations, supply chains and logistics-related business
operations (Belinski et al., 2020). However, not all critical factors are equally relevant for the
successful implementation of Industry 4.0, thus it is essential to know the common existing
critical factors to adopt Industry 4.0. Second, the study identifies the most common critical
success factors based on text mining, which reveals 12 critical factors, among which the most
discussed critical factors were organizational/managerial factors including training and
development, organizational culture, support from top management, organizational
structure, communication and cooperation, change management and innovation capability
followed by technological infrastructure, security issues, governance and standardization.
Lastly, financial support from the government for the implementation of Industry 4.0
technology is considered to be an important factor. Moreover, this work recognizes the
potential critical factors for Industry 4.0 implementation. This implies organization needs to
largely focus on managerial and organizational aspects to leverage the opportunities in
Industry 4.0 era. Identification of critical factors would help organizations, and managers
towards successful implementation of Industry 4.0 and suggests that the organizations and
managers need not have to focus on all the critical factors instead, they can encapsulate some
of the most common significant critical factors. Third, these factors can further be tested for
empirical evidence for effective deployment of Industry 4.0, in this sense the most crucial
factor can be prioritized using MCDM using DEMATEL, TOPSIS and interpretive structural
modeling. Hence, the proposed critical factors can be followed by empirical studies to yield
new and valuable insights. Fourth, managers can use these common critical success factors
as a road map for the revolutionary effects in the transition process of Industry 4.0.
Moreover, the implications will show some guidelines and quick reference for
practitioners and policymakers to ease the implementation of Industry 4.0 and remove
potential roadblocks in Industry 4.0 adoption without many difficulties through a
systematic examination of pertinent literature and gap assessment, it has significance for Industry 4.0
industry and government initiatives. Government departments across the countries can technology and
amend new policies to assist the companies with Industry 4.0 implementation more
effortlessly. For industry, the findings of the study can improve organizations’ competitive
research
advantage in domestic as well as international markets through the implementation of agenda
Industry 4.0. Capabilities of Industry 4.0 technology once implemented would drive and
improve Government initiatives. Fifth, there is increasing interest among academicians and
industrialists in Industry 4.0 critical factors. Hence, the groundwork of this literature review 473
paper can help to establish a common basis for understanding critical success factors for
Industry 4.0 implementation across multiple disciplinary perspectives. This study has
certain limitations, firstly, the review conducted in this study was grounded on historical
data. Secondly, a limited database with certain keywords was used, as the number of
databases is increasing and continuously expanding the body of information and
knowledge, which contributes to the limitations of the study. Based on research findings,
research work in the future need to focus on a systematic review of the Industry 4.0
phenomenon with research priorities to the service sector, as inferred implicitly from
literature to date (Mariani and Borghi, 2019), and seek to investigate the relationship
between factors like training and development, organizational culture, top management
support, organizational structure and innovation capability and its influence on Industry
4.0 readiness taking into account service sector perspective. Future studies can also
emphasize developing a critical success factor model for Industry 4.0 implementation.
Overall, the significant critical success factors highlighted in this study are useful in setting
a future research agenda.

References
Adebanjo, D., Laosirihongthong, T., Samaranayake, P. and Teh, P.L. (2021), “Key enablers of industry
4.0 development at firm level: findings from an emerging economy”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.3046764.
Agostini, L. and Filippini, R. (2019), “Organizational and managerial challenges in the path
toward Industry 4.0”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 406-421, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-02-2018-0030.
Alaloul, W.S., Liew, M.S., Zawawi, N.A.W.A. and Kennedy, I.B. (2020), “Industrial Revolution 4.0 in the
construction industry: challenges and opportunities for stakeholders”, Ain Shams Engineering
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 225-230, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2019.08.010.
Alekseev, A.N., Stanislav Evdokimov, Y., Aleksandra Tarasova, Y., Khachaturyan, K.S. and
Khachaturyan, A.A. (2018), “Financial Strategy of Development of Industry 4.0 in the Countries
with developing economy (Estrategia financiera de desarrollo industrial 4.0 en paıses con
economıa en desarrollo)”, Vol. 39 No. 12.
Ali, K. and Johl, S.K. (2021), “Soft and hard TQM practices: future research agenda for industry 4.0”,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, pp. 1-31, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2021.
1985448.
Alkhater, N., Walters, R. and Wills, G. (2018), “An empirical study of factors influencing cloud
adoption among private sector organisations”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 38-54, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.017.
Antony, J., Sony, M. and McDermott, O. (2021), “Conceptualizing Industry 4.0 readiness model
dimensions: an exploratory sequential mixed-method study”, TQM Journal, doi: 10.1108/TQM-
06-2021-0180.
Arcidiacono, F., Ancarani, A., Di Mauro, C. and Schupp, F. (2019), “Where the rubber meets the road.
Industry 4.0 among SMEs in the automotive sector”, IEEE Engineering Management Review,
Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 86-93, doi: 10.1109/EMR.2019.2932965.
APJBA Arnold, C., Veile, J.W. and Voigt, K.I. (2018), “What drives industry 4.0 adoption? An examination of
technological, organizational, and environmental determinants”, Towards Sustainable
16,3 Technologies and Innovation - Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International
Association for Management of Technology, IAMOT 2018.
Arowoiya, V.A., Oke, A.E., Akanni, P.O., Kwofie, T.E. and Enih, P.I. (2021), “Augmented reality for
construction revolution – analysis of critical success factors”, International Journal of
Construction Management, Vol. 1, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2021.2017542.
474 Bajic, B., Rikalovic, A., Suzic, N. and Piuri, V. (2021), “Industry 4.0 implementation challenges and
opportunities: a managerial perspective”, IEEE Systems Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 546-559,
doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2020.3023041.
Balasingham, K. (2016), “Industry 4.0: securing the future for German manufacturing companies”,
School of Management and Governance Business Administration, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 15, available
at: http://essay.utwente.nl/70665/1/Balasingham_BA_MA.pdf
Belinski, R., Peixe, A.M.M., Frederico, G.F. and Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2020), “Organizational learning and
Industry 4.0: findings from a systematic literature review and research agenda”, Benchmarking,
Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 2435-2457, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-04-2020-0158.
Bennett, N. and Lemoine, G.J. (2014), “What a difference a word makes: understanding threats to
performance in a VUCA world”, Business Horizons, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 311-317, doi: 10.1016/j.
bushor.2014.01.001.
Bhatia, M.S. and Kumar, S. (2020), “Critical success factors of industry 4.0 in automotive manufacturing
industry”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.
3017004.
Biegler, C., Steinwender, A., Sala, A., Sihn, W. and Rocchi, V. (2018), “Adoption of factory of the future
technologiesconfproc”, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and
Innovation, ICE/ITMC 2018 - Proceedings, doi: 10.1109/ICE.2018.8436310, October.
Bienhaus, F. and Haddud, A. (2018), “Procurement 4.0: factors influencing the digitisation of
procurement and supply chains”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 965-984, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-06-2017-0139.
u, S. (2019), “Critical success factors in the transition processes to Industry 4.0
Bolatan, G.I.S. and G€ozl€
projects”, Agile Approaches for Successfully Managing and Executing Projects in the Fourth
Industrial Revolution, IGI Global, pp. 267-278.
Bongo, M., Abellana, D.P., Caballes, S.A., Ancheta, R., Himang, C., Obiso, J.J., Ocampo, L. and Deocaris,
C. (2020), “Critical success factors in implementing Industry 4.0 from an organisational point of
view: a literature analysis”, International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 273-301, doi: 10.1504/IJAOM.2020.109804.
Carvajal, A.T. (2018), “Identifying Challenges and Success Factors towards Implementing Industry 4.0
Technologies in the Shipbuilding Industry (Master of Science)”, Vols 43-45, available at: http://
resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:958e592d-0316-4ca8-9029-3c0961f63843
Chau, K.Y., Tang, Y.M., Liu, X., Ip, Y.K. and Tao, Y. (2021), “Investigation of critical success factors for
improving supply chain quality management in manufacturing”, Enterprise Information
Systems, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 1418-1437, doi: 10.1080/17517575.2021.1880642.
Choudhury, A., Behl, A., Sheorey, P.A. and Pal, A. (2021), “Digital supply chain to unlock new agility:
a TISM approach”, Benchmarking, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 2075-2109, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-08-2020-0461.
Çınar, Z.M., Zeeshan, Q. and Korhan, O. (2021), “A framework for industry 4.0 readiness and maturity
of smart manufacturing enterprises: a case study”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13 No. 12,
doi: 10.3390/su13126659.
Colli, M., Berger, U., Bockholt, M., Madsen, O., Møller, C. and Wæhrens, B.V. (2019), “A maturity
assessment approach for conceiving context-specific roadmaps in the Industry 4.0 era”, Annual
Reviews in Control, Vol. 48, pp. 165-177, doi: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2019.06.001.
Da Silva, E.H.D.R., Angelis, J. and Lima, E.P. (2019), “In pursuit of digital manufacturing”, Procedia Industry 4.0
Manufacturing, Vol. 28, pp. 63-69, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.12.011.
technology and
Dassisti, M., Panetto, H., Lezoche, M., Merla, P., Giovannini, A. and Chimienti, M. (2017), “Industry 4.0
paradigm: the viewpoint of the small and medium enterprises”, in Proceedings of the 7th
research
International Conference on Information Society and Technology, IJCST 2017, Kopaonik, Serbia, agenda
12–15 March 2017, Vol. 1, pp. 50-54.
de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., Foropon, C. and Filho, M.G. (2018), “When titans meet – can
industry 4.0 revolutionise the environmentally-sustainable manufacturing wave? The role of 475
critical success factors”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 132 No. October
2017, pp. 18-25, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.017.
Dikhanbayeva, D., Tokbergenova, A., Lukhmanov, Y., Shehab, E., Pastuszak, Z. and Turkyilmaz, A.
(2021), “Critical factors of industry 4.0 implementation in an emerging country: empirical
study”, Future Internet, Vol. 13 No. 6, doi: 10.3390/fi13060137.
Elo, S. and Kyng€as, H. (2008), “The qualitative content analysis process”, Journal of Advanced
Nursing, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 107-115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
Erol, S., Schumacher, A. and Sihn, W. (2016), “Strategic guidance towards industry 4.0 – a three-stage
process model”, Internantional Conference on Competitive Manufacturing, January, pp. 495-501.
Erro-Garces, A. and Aranaz-Nun~ez, I. (2020), “Catching the wave: industry 4.0 in BRICS”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1169-1184, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-09-
2019-0344.
Fan, Y.J., Liu, S.F., Luh, D.B. and Teng, P.S. (2021), “Corporate sustainability: impact factors on
organizational innovation in the industrial area”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 1-24, doi: 10.3390/su13041979.
Fernandez-Miranda, S.S., Marcos, M., Peralta, M.E. and Aguayo, F. (2017), “The challenge of
integrating Industry 4.0 in the degree of Mechanical Engineering”, Procedia Manufacturing,
Vol. 13, pp. 1229-1236, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.039.
Frank, H. and Hatak, I. (1993), “Doing a research literature review”, Nurse Researcher, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 43-55, doi: 10.7748/nr.1.1.43.s6.
Gardas, B.B., Raut, R.D. and Narkhede, B. (2019), “Identifying critical success factors to facilitate
reusable plastic packaging towards sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol. 236 February, pp. 81-92, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.
01.113.
Ghobakhloo, M. (2018), “The future of manufacturing industry: a strategic roadmap toward Industry
4.0”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 910-936, doi: 10.1108/
JMTM-02-2018-0057.
Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), “A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and
associated methodologies”, Health Information and Libraries Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 91-108,
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
Gui, A., Fernando, Y., Shaharudin, M.S., Mokhtar, M., Karmawan, I.G.M. and Suryanto (2020), “Cloud
computing adoption using toe framework for Indonesia’s micro small medium enterprises”,
International Journal on Informatics Visualization, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 237-242, doi: 10.30630/joiv.4.
4.458.
Hakim, I.M., Singgih, M.L. and Gunarta, I.K. (2021), “Critical success factors for implementation of
internet of things (IoT) in automotive companies: a literature review”, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Vol. 1,
pp. 5199-5207.
Hamzeh, R., Zhong, R., Xu, X.W., Kajati, E. and Zolotova, I. (2018), “A technology selection
framework for manufacturing companies in the context of industry 4.0”, DISA 2018 - IEEE
World Symposium on Digital Intelligence for Systems and Machines, Proceedings, pp. 267-276,
doi: 10.1109/DISA.2018.8490606.
APJBA Hecklau, F., Galeitzke, M., Flachs, S. and Kohl, H. (2016), “Holistic approach for human resource
management in industry 4.0”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 54, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.102.
16,3
Hermann, M., Pentek, T. and Otto, B. (2016), “Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios”,
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2016-March,
pp. 3928-3937, doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2016.488.
Horvath, D. and Szabo, R.Z. (2019), “Driving forces and barriers of Industry 4.0: do multinational and
small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities?”, Technological Forecasting and
476 Social Change, Vol. 146 March, pp. 119-132, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.021.
Hossain, M.K. and Thakur, V. (2021), “Benchmarking health-care supply chain by implementing
Industry 4.0: a fuzzy-AHP-DEMATEL approach”, Benchmarking, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 556-581,
doi: 10.1108/BIJ-05-2020-0268.
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W. and Helbig, J. (2013), “Securing the future of German manufacturing
industry: recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative Industrie 4.0”, Final Report
of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group, April, pp. 1-84.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A. and Sharma, R. (2018), “Analysis of the driving and dependence power
of barriers to adopt industry 4.0 in Indian manufacturing industry”, Computers in Industry,
Vol. 101 July, pp. 107-119, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2018.06.004.
Kang, H.S., Lee, J.Y., Choi, S., Kim, H., Park, J.H., Son, J.Y., Kim, B.H. and Noh, S. Do. (2016), “Smart
manufacturing: past research, present findings, and future directions”, International Journal
of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing - Green Technology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 111-128,
doi: 10.1007/s40684-016-0015-5.
Keller, M., Rosenberg, M., Brettel, M. and Friederichsen, N. (2014), “How virtualization,
decentrazliation and network building change the manufacturing landscape: an industry 4.0
perspective”, International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial, Mechatronic and
Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Kiel, D., M€uller, J.M., Arnold, C. and Voigt, K.I. (2017), “Sustainable industrial value creation: benefits
and challenges of industry 4.0”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 8,
doi: 10.1142/S1363919617400151.
€
Kiraz, A., Canpolat, O., Ozkurt, C. and Taşkın, H. (2020), “Analysis of the factors affecting the Industry
4.0 tendency with the structural equation model and an application”, Computers and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 150 October, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2020.106911.
Kopp, R., Hirsch Kreinsen, H., Preenen, P., Dhondt, S. and Kohlgr€ uber, M. (2019), “Sociotechnical
perspectives on digitalisation and Industry 4.0”, International Journal of Technology Transfer
and Commercialisation, Vol. 16 No. 3, p. 290, doi: 10.1504/ijttc.2019.10021352.
Lai, N.Y.G., Jayasekara, D., Wong, K.H., Yu, L.J., Kang, H.S., Pawar, K. and Zhu, Y. (2020), “Advanced
automation and robotics for high volume labour-intensive manufacturing”, HORA 2020 - 2nd
International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications,
Proceedings, L, doi: 10.1109/HORA49412.2020.9152831.
Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.G., Feld, T. and Hoffmann, M. (2014), Industrie 4.0.
IRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Business & Information Systems Engineering, Berkeley, p. 6.
Lee, Y.Y., Falahat, M. and Sia, B.K. (2021), “Drivers of digital adoption: a multiple case analysis among
low and high-tech industries in Malaysia”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 80-97, doi: 10.1108/APJBA-05-2019-0093.
Lekan, A., Clinton, A. and James, O. (2021), “The disruptive adaptations of construction 4.0 and
industry 4.0 as a pathway to a sustainable innovation and inclusive industrial technological
development”, Buildings, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.3390/buildings11030079.
Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E.D.F.R. and Ramos, L.F.P. (2017), “Past, present and future of
Industry 4.0 - a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 3609-3629, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.
1308576.
Lin, D., Lee, C.K.M., Lau, H. and Yang, Y. (2018), “Strategic response to Industry 4.0: an empirical Industry 4.0
investigation on the Chinese automotive industry”, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Vol. 118 No. 3, pp. 589-605, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2017-0403. technology and
Luthra, S. and Mangla, S.K. (2018), “Evaluating challenges to Industry 4.0 initiatives for supply chain
research
sustainability in emerging economies”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 117, agenda
pp. 168-179, doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2018.04.018.
Luthra, S., Kumar, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Mangla, S.K. and Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2020), “Industry 4.0 as an
enabler of sustainability diffusion in supply chain: an analysis of influential strength of drivers 477
in an emerging economy”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 5,
pp. 1505-1521, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1660828.
Machado, E., Scavarda, L.F., Caiado, R.G.G. and Thome, A.M.T. (2021), “Barriers and enablers for the
integration of industry 4.0 and sustainability in supply chains of msmes”, Sustainability
(Switzerland), Vol. 13 No. 21, doi: 10.3390/su132111664.
 Soliman, M., Gerstlberger, W. and Frank, A.G. (2021), “Sociotechnical factors and Industry
Marcon, E.,
4.0: an integrative perspective for the adoption of smart manufacturing technologies”, Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-01-2021-0017.
Mariani, M. and Borghi, M. (2019), “Industry 4.0: a bibliometric review of its managerial intellectual
structure and potential evolution in the service industries”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 149 June, 119752, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119752.
Masood, T. and Egger, J. (2019), “Augmented reality in support of Industry 4.0—implementation
challenges and success factors”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 58,
pp. 181-195, doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.02.003.
Mays, N., Pope, C. and Popay, J. (2005), “Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative
evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field”, Journal of Health
Services Research and Policy, Vol. 10 Suppl. 1, pp. 6-20, doi: 10.1258/1355819054308576.
Milosevic, D. and Patanakul, P. (2005), “Standardized project management may increase
development projects success”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 181-192, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.11.002.
Mir, U.B., Sharma, S., Kar, A.K. and Gupta, M.P. (2020), “Critical success factors for integrating
artificial intelligence and robotics”, Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 307-331, doi: 10.1108/DPRG-03-2020-0032.
Mittal, V.K. and Sangwan, K.S. (2014), “Development of a model of barriers to environmentally
conscious manufacturing implementation”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 584-594, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2013.838649.
Moeuf, A., Pellerin, R., Lamouri, S., Tamayo-Giraldo, S. and Barbaray, R. (2018), “The industrial
management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 1118-1136, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1372647.
Moeuf, A., Lamouri, S., Pellerin, R., Tamayo-Giraldo, S., Tobon-Valencia, E. and Eburdy, R. (2020),
“Identification of critical success factors, risks and opportunities of Industry 4.0 in SMEs”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 1384-1400, doi: 10.1080/
00207543.2019.1636323.
Mohd Salleh, N.H., Selvaduray, M., Jeevan, J., Ngah, A.H. and Zailani, S. (2021), “Adaptation of
industrial revolution 4.0 in a seaport system”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13 No. 19,
doi: 10.3390/su131910667.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. (2009), “Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 62
No. 10, pp. 1006-1012, doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.
uller, J.M., Kiel, D. and Voigt, K.I. (2018), “What drives the implementation of Industry 4.0? The role
M€
of opportunities and challenges in the context of sustainability”, Sustainability (Switzerland),
Vol. 10 No. 1, doi: 10.3390/su10010247.
APJBA uller, J.M. (2019a), “Assessing the barriers to Industry 4.0 implementation from a workers’
M€
perspective”, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 52 No. 13, pp. 2189-2194, doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.
16,3 11.530.
uller, J.M. (2019b), “Antecedents to digital platform usage in Industry 4.0 by established
M€
manufacturers”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 11 No. 4, doi: 10.3390/su11041121.
Murthy, M.A.N., Sangwan, K.S. and Narahari, N.S. (2021), “Tracing evolution of EFQM and its
relationship with Industry 4.0”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, pp. 1-40,
478 doi: 10.1080/14783363.2021.1999802.
Narula, S., Prakash, S., Dwivedy, M., Talwar, V. and Tiwari, S.P. (2020), “Industry 4.0 adoption key
factors: an empirical study on manufacturing industry”, Journal of Advances in Management
Research, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 697-725, doi: 10.1108/JAMR-03-2020-0039.
Naveed, Q.N., Islam, S., Qureshi, M.R.N.M., Aseere, A.M., Rasheed, M.A.A. and Fatima, S. (2021),
“Evaluating and ranking of critical success factors of cloud enterprise resource planning
adoption using MCDM approach”, IEEE Access, Vol. 9, pp. 156880-156893, doi: 10.1109/
ACCESS.2021.3129523.
Nenadal, J., Vykydal, D. and Tyleckova, E. (2021), “Complex customer loyalty measurement at closed-
loop quality management in B2B area—Czech example”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13
No. 5, doi: 10.3390/su13052957.
Nimawat, D. and Gidwani, B.D. (2021), “Prioritization of important factors towards the status of
industry 4.0 implementation utilizing AHP and ANP techniques”, Benchmarking, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 695-720, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-07-2020-0346.
Nwaiwu, F., Duduci, M., Chromjakova, F. and Otekhile, C.A.F. (2020), “Industry 4.0 concepts within the
Czech SME manufacturing sector: an empirical assessment of critical success factors”, Business:
Theory and Practice, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 58-70, doi: 10.3846/btp.2020.10712.
Pacchini, A.P.T., Lucato, W.C., Facchini, F. and Mummolo, G. (2019), “The degree of readiness for the
implementation of Industry 4.0”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 113, 103125, doi: 10.1016/j.
compind.2019.103125.
Pagliosa, M., Tortorella, G. and Ferreira, J.C.E. (2019), “Industry 4.0 and Lean Manufacturing: a
systematic literature review and future research directions”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 543-569, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-12-2018-0446.
Pahlevan-Sharif, S., Mura, P. and Wijesinghe, S.N.R. (2019), “A systematic review of systematic
reviews in tourism”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 39 November 2018,
pp. 158-165, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.04.001.
Pereira, A.C. and Romero, F. (2017), “A review of the meanings and the implications of the Industry 4.0
concept”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 13, pp. 1206-1214, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.032.
Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2008), “Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide”,
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, pp. 1-336, doi: 10.1002/
9780470754887.
Piccarozzi, M., Aquilani, B. and Gatti, C. (2018), “Industry 4.0 in management studies: a systematic
literature review”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 10 No. 10, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.3390/su10103821.
Pickering, C. and Byrne, J. (2014), “The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature
reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers”, Higher Education Research and
Development, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 534-548, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2013.841651.

Pietruszka-Ortyl, A., Cwiek, M., Zie˛ bicki, B. and Wojcik-Karpacz, A. (2021), “Organizational culture as
a prerequisite for knowledge transfer among IT professionals: the case of energy companies”,
Energies, Vol. 14 No. 23, p. 8139, doi: 10.3390/en14238139.
Pozzi, R., Rossi, T. and Secchi, R. (2021), “Industry 4.0 technologies: critical success factors for
implementation and improvements in manufacturing companies”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2021.1891481.
Raj, A., Dwivedi, G., Sharma, A., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B. and Rajak, S. (2020), “Barriers to the Industry 4.0
adoption of industry 4.0 technologies in the manufacturing sector: an inter-country
comparative perspective”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 224 August technology and
2019, 107546, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107546. research
Rampersad, G. (2020), “Robot will take your job: innovation for an era of artificial intelligence”, Journal agenda
of Business Research, Vol. 116 January, pp. 68-74, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.019.
Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Williams, M.D. (2013), “Analysing challenges, barriers and CSF of
egov adoption”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 7 No. 2, 479
pp. 177-198, doi: 10.1108/17506161311325350.
Rane, S.B. and Narvel, Y.A.M. (2021), “Leveraging the industry 4.0 technologies for improving
agility of project procurement management processes”, International Journal of Systems
Assurance Engineering and Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 1146-1172, doi: 10.1007/s13198-
021-01331-4.
Rejikumar, G., Sreedharan, V.R., Arunprasad, P., Persis, J. and Sreeraj, K.M. (2019), “Industry 4.0: key
findings and analysis from the literature arena”, Benchmarking, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 2514-2542,
doi: 10.1108/BIJ-09-2018-0281.
Roblek, V., Mesko, M., Pusavec, F. and Likar, B. (2021), “The role and meaning of the digital
transformation as a disruptive innovation on small and medium manufacturing enterprises”,
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.592528.
Sader, S., Husti, I. and Daroczi, M. (2019), “Industry 4.0 as a key enabler toward successful
implementation of total quality management practices”, Periodica Polytechnica Social and
Management Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 131-140, doi: 10.3311/PPso.12675.
Salam, M.A. (2019), “Analyzing manufacturing strategies and Industry 4.0 supplier performance
relationships from a resource-based perspective”, Benchmarking: An International Journal. doi:
10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0428.
ujo, M. and Ares, E. (2017), “Towards Industry 4.0: an
Santos, C., Mehrsai, A., Barros, A.C., Ara
overview of European strategic roadmaps”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 13, pp. 972-979,
doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.093.
Schmidt, R., M€ohring, M., H€arting, R.C., Reichstein, C., Neumaier, P. and Jozinovic, P. (2015), “Industry
4.0 - potentials for creating smart products: empirical research results”, Lecture Notes in
Business Information Processing, Vol. 208 June, pp. 16-27, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19027-3_2.
Schneider, P. (2018), “Managerial challenges of Industry 4.0: an empirically backed research agenda
for a nascent field”, Review of Managerial Science”, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Vol. 12 No. 3,
doi: 10.1007/s11846-018-0283-2.
Schumacher, A., Erol, S. and Sihn, W. (2016), “A maturity model for assessing industry 4.0 readiness
and maturity of manufacturing enterprises”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 52, pp. 161-166, doi: 10.1016/j.
procir.2016.07.040.
Schumacher, A., Nemeth, T. and Sihn, W. (2019), “Roadmapping towards industrial digitalization
based on an Industry 4.0 maturity model for manufacturing enterprises”, Procedia CIRP,
Vol. 79, pp. 409-414, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2019.02.110.
Schwab, K. (2016), The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What it Means and How to Respond, World
Economic Forum, pp. 1-7.
Shamim, S., Cang, S., Yu, H. and Li, Y. (2016), “Management approaches for Industry 4.0: a human
resource management perspective”, 2016 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC
2016, pp. 5309-5316, doi: 10.1109/CEC.2016.7748365.
Sharma, M. and Sehrawat, R. (2020), “Quantifying SWOT analysis for cloud adoption using FAHP-
DEMATEL approach: evidence from the manufacturing sector”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1111-1152, doi: 10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0276.
APJBA Sharma, M., Kamble, S., Mani, V., Sehrawat, R., Belhadi, A. and Sharma, V. (2021), “Industry 4.0
adoption for sustainability in multi-tier manufacturing supply chain in emerging economies”,
16,3 Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 281, 125013, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125013.
Shayganmehr, M., Gupta, S., Laguir, I., Stekelorum, R. and Kumar, A. (2021), “Assessing the role of
industry 4.0 for enhancing swift trust and coordination in humanitarian supply chain”, Annals
of Operations Research, pp. 1-33, doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-04430-4.
Shinohara, A.C., Da Silva, E.H.D.R., De Lima, E.P., Deschamps, F. and Da Costa, S.E.G. (2017), “Critical
480 success factors for digital manufacturing implementation in the context of industry 4.0”, 67th
Annual Conference and Expo of the Institute of Industrial Engineers 2017, May, pp. 199-204.
Sony, M. and Naik, S. (2019a), “Key ingredients for evaluating Industry 4.0 readiness for
organizations: a literature review”, Benchmarking, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 2213-2232, doi: 10.1108/
BIJ-09-2018-0284.
Sony, M. and Naik, S.S. (2019b), “Ten lessons for managers while implementing industry 4.0”, IEEE
Engineering Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 45-52, doi: 10.1109/EMR.2019.2913930.
Sony, M. and Naik, S. (2020), “Critical factors for the successful implementation of Industry 4.0:
a review and future research direction”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 31 No. 10,
pp. 799-815, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1691278.
Stachova, K., Papula, J., Stacho, Z. and Kohnova, L. (2019), “External partnerships in employee
education and development as the key to facing industry 4.0 challenges”, Sustainability
(Switzerland), Vol. 11 No. 2, doi: 10.3390/su11020345.
Stentoft, J., Jensen, K.W., Philipsen, K. and Haug, A. (2019), “Drivers and barriers for industry 4.0
readiness and practice: a SME perspective with empirical evidence”, Proceedings of the 52nd
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 6, pp. 5155-5164, doi: 10.24251/hicss.
2019.619.
Stocker, A., Rosenberger, M., Schmeja, M. and Schneider, G. (2021), “Key success factors for the
implementation of digital technologies in the context of industry 4.0”, Proceedings of the IM
2021-2021 IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management,
pp. 920-925.
Sung, W. and Kim, C. (2021), “A study on the effect of change management on organizational
innovation: focusing on the mediating effect of members’ innovative behavior”, Sustainability,
Vol. 13 No. 4, p. 2079, doi: 10.3390/su13042079.
Surianarayanan, G. and Menkhoff, T. (2020), “Outcomes of an expert survey: Are Singapore’s
manufacturing small and medium enterprises ready to embrace Industry 4.0”, in 19th
International WWW/Internet Conference ICWI 2020, pp. 51-60, available at: https://ink.library.
smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/6726/.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A. and Pittaway, L. (2005), “Using knowledge within small and
medium-sized firms: a systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 257-281, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00116.x.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tripathi, S. and Gupta, M. (2021), “A holistic model for Global Industry 4.0 readiness assessment”,
Benchmarking, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 3006-3039, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-07-2020-0354.
Veile, J.W., Kiel, D., M€uller, J.M. and Voigt, K.I. (2020), “Lessons learned from Industry 4.0
implementation in the German manufacturing industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 977-997, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0270.
Vereycken, Y., Ramioul, M. and Hermans, M. (2021), “Old wine in new bottles? Revisiting employee
participation in Industry 4.0”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 44-73,
doi: 10.1111/ntwe.12176.
  r, P., Rolınek, L. and Tousek, R. (2020), “Human resources readiness for
Vrchota, J., Marikova, M., Reho Industry 4.0
industry 4.0”, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-20, doi: 10.3390/joitmc6010003. technology and
 r, P., Marıkova, M. and Pech, M. (2021), “Critical success factors of the project
Vrchota, J., Reho
research
management in relation to industry 4.0 for sustainability of projects”, Sustainability agenda
(Switzerland), Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.3390/su13010281.
Wang, S., Wan, J., Li, D. and Zhang, C. (2016), “Implementing smart factory of Industrie 4.0: an
outlook”, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, Vol. 12 No. 1, doi: 10.1155/2016/ 481
3159805.
Xing, K., Cropley, D.H., Oppert, M.L. and Singh, C. (2021), “Readiness for digital innovation and
industry 4.0 transformation: studies on manufacturing industries in the city of Salisbury”,
Business Innovation with New ICT in the Asia-Pacific: Case Studies, Springer, Singapore.
Xu, L. Da, Xu, E.L. and Li, L. (2018), “Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 2941-2962, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.
1444806.
Yeh, C.C. and Chen, Y.F. (2018), “Critical success factors for adoption of 3D printing”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 132 June 2017, pp. 209-216, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.
02.003.
Zheng, T., Ardolino, M., Bacchetti, A., Perona, M. and Zanardini, M. (2020), “The impacts of Industry
4.0: a descriptive survey in the Italian manufacturing sector”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1085-1115, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0269.

Further reading
Lowry, L.L. (2017), “Quantitative tourism research”, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Travel
and Tourism, Sage Publications.
Agrawal, R., Jain, J.K., Yadav, V.S., Manupati, V.K. and Varela, L. (2021), Recent Advances in Smart
Manufacturing and Materials, Springer, Singapore.
De Man, J.C. and Strandhagen, J.O. (2017), “An industry 4.0 research agenda for sustainable business
models”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 63, pp. 721-726, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.315.

Corresponding author
Poonam Sahoo can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]