Leveraging Technology Adoption To Navigate The 4IR

Received: 18 January 2023 Revised: 18 August 2023 Accepted: 22 August 2023
DOI: 10.1002/eng2.12762
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Leveraging technology adoption to navigate the 4IR towards

a future-ready business: A systematic literature review
Sean Kruger1 Adriana A. Steyn2
1
Centre for the Future of Work,
Department of Business Management, Abstract
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South The purpose of this study was to analyze technology adoption constructs that
Africa
are instrumental for organizations to effectively utilize emerging technologies,
2
Department of Informatics, University of
enabling them to navigate the complexities and opportunities presented by
Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
the fourth industrial revolution (4IR). To achieve this a descriptive research
Correspondence approach was used, guided by a systematic review of literature from 2016 to
Sean Kruger, Centre for the Future of
Work, Department of Business
2022. Among the 4037 studies initially identified, only 69 were deemed relevant.
Management, University of Pretoria, Meta-synthesis was then used to systematically identify, categorize, and quan-
Lynnwood Road, Pretoria, South Africa. tify fundamental constructs inherent in the models from the relevant literature.
Email: sean.kruger@up.ac.za
As a result of this process, 406 constructs were identified across six thematic
categories. These were subsequently integrated to develop a conceptual model
that can be used to coordinate strategies to harness the potential of the 4IR
towards a future-ready business. Findings show that the role of technology adop-
tion remains pertinent in the ever-digitized world in which businesses operate
and certain constructs are key to explain, support, and predict enterprise-wide
adoption in the 4IR paradigm. Future studies can expand and test the model
to promote digital fluency required by business constituents, noting differences
across sectors.
KEYWORDS
4IR, cyber-physical systems, digital transformation, industry 4.0, smart technologies, strategy,
technology adoption
1 I N T RO DU CT ION
Digital transformation has enabled numerous opportunities across sectors. For example, prior to the digital age, retail
businesses primarily operated in brick-and-mortar stores. With the emergence of e-commerce and other digital platforms,
businesses now have a global reach and can operate 24/7.1 However, in the context of the fourth industrial revolution
(4IR), emerging technologies are now able to better integrate across business units and functions, allowing organizations
to generate data and use it to understand customer behaviors, preferences and buying patterns. Consequently, organiza-
tions can personalize marketing efforts, improve customer experiences and optimize operations based on more accurate
forecasting. The emerging technology in question includes but is not limited to artificial intelligence (AI), Big Data ana-
lytics, machine learning, the Internet of Things (IoT), the metaverse, nanotechnology, robotics, additive manufacturing
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
© 2023 The Authors. Engineering Reports published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Engineering Reports. 2023;e12762. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/eng2 1 of 31

https://doi.org/10.1002/eng2.12762
25778196, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eng2.12762 by Cochrane Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 of 31 KRUGER and STEYN
(AM), and blockchain.2,3 These technologies also saw utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic, addressing safety
equipment shortages through AM and enhanced forecasting of concentrated areas of infection, allowing leaders to make
data-driven decisions.4,5 Despite several opportunities presented by this paradigm, the rapid expansion of emerging
technologies brings with it several complexities,6,7 consequently exerting pressure on organizations to reassess or even
reinvent their business models, strategies, and systems.8,9 Fittingly, the topic of 4IR’s impact on the future of work and
business sustainability has gained global interest.10,11
Organizations are being compelled to use emerging technologies to enhance their innovation capabilities,
supporting—to a certain degree—their ability to operate competitively in an environmentally sustainable way.12 But
how have business leaders, strategists, government agencies and academics navigated such pressure to date? Scholarly
inquiries13-18 show that technology adoption models have been used and applied in different contexts to determine the
application and use of new technologies.19,20 The models explain the process by which innovation can be cultivated
through the adoption of technology, a critical component for enhancing organizational competitiveness within the context
of the emerging paradigm.21 Consequently, various topical areas have seen technology adoption within the 4IR, includ-
ing sustainability,8,22-24 lean manufacturing,10,25,26 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurship,3,27-30
production planning10,31,32 and strategic management.33 Notably, topical areas extend beyond specific industries, as 4IR
technologies are being adopted across multiple sectors, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of the paradigm. Yet,
despite growing research across disciplines on the impact of emerging technologies, an aggregated understanding of the
constructs that can explain, support, and predict adoption of technologies to navigate the 4IR remains vague,12,34 particu-
larly at an organizational level.32,35-37 This gap is particularly pronounced regarding the complexity of technology adoption
and the absence of standardized models or frameworks, specifically for 4IR and its associated emerging technologies.
This is evident as there is continual adaptation of technology adoption models when applied on organizational level to
studies conducted in the context of the 4IR. The subsequent research question raised is: “What technology adoption model
constructs support the acceptance of emerging 4IR technologies at an organizational level?”
To address this question, the study employed a descriptive research approach using a systematic literature review
(SLR). This was to identify constructs that influence the acceptance of 4IR-related “smart” emerging technologies, specif-
ically at an organizational level. The study was limited to academic literature published between 2016 and 2022. In
alignment with Moher et al.,38 the study used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyzes
(PRISMA) method for the SLR to help maintain rigor and consistency in the review process, where six academic databases
were used to search for relevant articles. Meta-synthesis was used to analyze the articles. This also guided the content
analysis, thereby facilitating the systematic and objective identification, categorization, and quantification of key con-
structs across technology adoption models within the corpus. The outcome of this was to develop a conceptual model for
the organization-level adoption of emerging technologies, as informed by existing literature.
This underscores the novelty of the present investigation, as the study contributes by synthesizing information into a
conceptual model that shows key trends and the constructs deemed important for comprehending this novel paradigm.
It also provides a guideline to enhance organizational level adoption that can be used by leaders to implement corrective
measures. By illuminating how technology adoption can be supported within this emergent context, the research provides
critical insights that addresses the current gap in research, extending academic literature within the rapidly evolving
landscape towards future-ready business and workforce. Consequently, the objectives of this study are to (i) investigate
prevalent technology adoption models and associated constructs deemed pertinent at an organizational level for the 4IR,
(ii) enhance academic understanding of technology adoption within the context of the 4IR, particularly the effective
utilization of emerging technologies, and (iii) develop a conceptual model that can guide policy and strategy making at
various levels of an organization, enabling businesses to successfully navigate the 4IR and its associated complexities.
The article is structured as follows to address the research question to meet these objectives: First, the methodology
used to identify technology adoption constructs from existing literature is presented. The findings are then presented
based on six thematic categories. This is followed by the discussion, in which the conceptual model that was developed is
presented. Finally, concluding remarks are provided, while noting the limitations of and acknowledgements for the study.
2 M ET H O D O LO GY
A descriptive research approach was selected to determine relevant technology adoption models and constructs that are
deemed influential at an organizational level. This was done using a SLR. This methodology was deemed appropriate as it
provides a holistic and generalizable understanding of the subject matter using reliable data from a range of sources.39,40
KRUGER and STEYN 3 of 31
While various methodologies can be applied within SLR, this study used the PRISMA method.38 This ensured the use
of a widely applied methodology in the information systems, business, and engineering domain. Moreover, given that
metadata provided limited information, such as keywords, abstracts, and the authors’ names and their countries of origin,
each eligible article was thoroughly examined to extract the necessary information for the study.
To this end, a meta-synthesis approach was used to guide content analysis, allowing for the systematic and objective
identification, categorization, and quantification of key constructs across technology adoption models within the corpus.
Based on the SLR, the first stage was the development of a research question. Using the research question, relevant articles
could be identified. A search strategy was used to identify relevant research papers between 2016 and 2022 in accordance
with the guidelines of Kitchenham41 and the PRISMA method. The reason for this timeframe was that the term “4IR”
had been coined in 2016.42 It incorporates the term “Industry 4.0 (I4.0),” which is a subcategory of the 4IR. To develop
a narrative and determine impactful constructs that encompass the 4IR’s extensive scope, search strings and keywords,
including certain synonyms and nuances of the new paradigm, were used.43,44 Using the research question, several key-
words and phrases were developed for a search string using Boolean expressions and wildcard symbols. Stop words were
included to reduce the number of search strings. In addition, the domain of research was not overly focused to collect a
broad range of relevant sources. The keywords applied included [“technology adoption” OR “technology adoption mod-
el” OR “technology acceptance”] AND [“4IR” OR “fourth industrial revolution” OR “industry 4.0” OR “cyber physical
systems” OR “digital transformation” OR “smart technologies” OR “emerging technologies”] AND [“organization” OR
“organization” OR “strategy”]. Additional criteria were also used, which were included in the shortlist at a later phase of
the search process, such as adopt*, accept*, CPS*, emerging*, I4.0* and constructs*. Highly cited articles, along with sem-
inal work in the fields of I4.0, 4IR, and organizational applications of smart technologies associated with the paradigm
were then collected. This was applied to six databases, including Emerald, ProQuest, the Institute of Electrical and Elec-
tronics Engineers (IEEE), ScienceDirect, Scopus and Dimensions. The latter is a purpose-built database that makes use
of AI to ensure a broad scope of coverage. Finally, cross-referencing was conducted to identify frequently co-cited papers.
This was done to identify commonalities between papers. This made it possible for clusters to be formed that would enable
researchers to understand the knowledge base, intellectual structures, and current scientific studies.45
The second stage entailed the screening of articles based on exclusion and inclusion criteria. This criterion applied
is summarized in Table 1. The articles’ abstracts, titles and keywords, and accessibility were first screened to determine
whether the study focused on the relevant context or provided a theoretical discussion. Of the 4037 publications identified
across six databases and through cross referencing, 3688 were accessible for screening by the researchers through their
institution. Of these, 3224 were excluded, with 464 downloaded for a full review. This formed the baseline for articles that
T A B L E 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select relevant documents per SLR
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
The study uses empirical methodology applied to a 4IR construct. The article is a conference paper, master’s dissertation, doctoral
thesis, working paper or White Paper.
The publication language is in English. The articles are not written in English.
The study is in a blind peer-reviewed publication. The articles do not use empirical research methods.
It includes concepts relating to the 4IR or associated smart The article does not specifically include concepts of the 4IR.
technologies.
A technology adoption model or combination of models is used as Articles provide information about the 4IR or I4.0, but do not
a theoretical foundation for the assessment of smart provide an assessment of their adoption.
technologies of the 4IR.
Articles consider the processes, critical success factors or impacts The articles’ date ranges are not between 2016 and 2022.
of the 4IR.
Studies use empirical techniques to assess 4IR technologies and The research is only done on an individual or group research level.
their adoption.
The research is in an accredited journal publication. The authors’ country affiliations and their countries of study are
not indicated.
The full text of the article is accessible by the researchers. There are duplicate papers (the same paper is received from
different databases).
FIGURE 1 PRISMA flow diagram applied to this study. Source: Adapted from Moher et al.38
were further scrutinized by assessing their full texts. Mendeley (2022 version 2.69.0) was used as the reference manager
and storage software.
To complete the identification of relevant articles within the 464 that had already been screened, eligibility took place.
Criterion was applied to each article in its entirety, where the researchers noted each article’s alignment and relevance
to the research question, with a focus on the technology adopted, the impact, 4IR contextual relevance, constructs and
the level of assessment. Outcomes of 0 had a perfect alignment, 1 had an excellent alignment, and 2 had majority align-
ment. However, outcomes of 3 and above were excluded. Using the thematic classification and synthesis, 395 papers were
removed, leaving 69 articles for data extraction. This process, guided by PRISMA is shown in Figure 1.
Meta-synthesis was used to guide content analysis of the narrowed corpus and to develop a conceptual model. The
first stage entailed reviewing the corpus’s performance and trends related to technology adoption models. These findings
were then synthesized and interpreted. This involved assessing them analytically and presenting them visually using
tableau as a data analytics tool. This provided the foundation for the content analysis. The researchers’ codification and
categorization of constructs resulted in a comprehensive overview of six themes related to technology adoption at an
organizational level. The frequency of each construct within the literature was analyzed, as well as the co-occurrence of
constructs, revealing patterns and relationships between them. The analysis provided insights into the most influential
constructs in the context of the organizational adoption of emerging technologies. A conceptual model was formulated
based on the findings of the content analysis, which represented the relationships between key constructs in technology
adoption models visually.
3 FINDINGS
After quality assessment, 69 articles published over 7 years between 2016 and 2022 were accepted from the databases
as follows: two from Dimensions, 21 from Emerald, 10 from ProQuest, one from IEEE, 12 from ScienceDirect, and 19
from SCOPUS. Four articles originated from cross-referencing. Of the 69 articles, 65 were empirical studies comprising
55 survey studies, five interview-based studies, three case studies, one Delphi technique study, and one experimental
field study. The remaining four were literature studies. The full texts of the articles, bibliographic data and additional
parameters not included in the metadata were manually extracted from each article and coded to a Microsoft Excel file
(2021 version 16.54). This included the number of citations, methodology used and open access (OA) status to aggregate
evidence from the studies identified. This facilitated the evaluation and interpretation of available research regarding the
phenomenon of technology adoption models to assess emerging 4IR technologies at an organizational level. The sample
sizes within each study were extracted to add to the meta-synthesis of the size and overarching impact of each study in
the field in which it was conducted. From this data, six thematic themes were identified. These themes included regional
aspects, distribution by date, primary technology adoption models used, subject areas identified, emerging 4IR technolo-
gies adopted, and a comparison of the subject area and with the technology adopted. The primary research output—a
conceptual model—was then synthesized from these findings.
3.1 Regional attributes
Countrywide frequency per publisher’s location saw the United Kingdom (UK) lead with 34 articles. Thirty two of these
were subscription-based and two were open-access articles. This was followed by the United States (USA) with seven
subscription-based and three open-access articles. Switzerland had the most open-access articles at nine, and only one
subscription-based article. The Netherlands had only one open-access article and seven subscription-based articles. See
Appendix A for an overview of the access distribution per publication in terms of country of study, country of publication
and author’s affiliation. Overall, open-access publications accounted for 30.4% (21) of the articles, as opposed to 69.6%
(48) subscription-based articles for this study. Open-access publications reduce access barriers to readers, often leading
to a wider reader demographic and citation count. Despite this, the most-cited articles were subscription-based articles
with 1950 citations; open-access articles accounted for 213 citations, as can be seen in Appendix B.
The geographic locations where the research was executed was meticulously evaluated, focusing on the actual concen-
tration of the investigation within the study’s area of interest, rather than only the geographic distribution of publishers.
India emerged as the focal point of such studies, with a count of 11 conducted in the area. This was closely trailed by
global studies accounting for 10, which were characterized by their holistic approach and integration of multiple coun-
tries. Subsequently, Malaysia contributed seven studies, the UK five and South Africa four. As depicted in Figure 2, it can
be observed that the execution of studies was not confined to a particular region, demonstrating a diverse distribution
within the corpus.
Despite India being the leading country in terms of studies conducted per publication, it is important to consider the
sample size of each study. By examining the sample sizes in detail, one can gain a better understanding of the overall
FIGURE 2 Country of study distribution per publication count. Source: Tableau

FIGURE 3 Country of authors’ affiliation per publication count. Source: Tableau
use and assessment of the studies within their respective regions. The leader in this regard was Malaysia, with a total
sample size of 1761. This could be attributed to Malaysia’s major technological trends and drive towards industrialization
in various sectors, as noted by Salimon et al.30 India was placed second with a total sample size of 1650. It has also seen
several efforts in supporting large-scale organizations to develop and leverage 4IR-associated technologies, in accordance
with Mitra et al.46 Researchers in this country have also channeled their efforts towards supporting SMEs.47 Globally, the
sample size was 1394. China took third place with a sample size of 795, which could be attributed to the region’s efforts
to promote automated robotics in new fields, as well as optimizing existing manufacturing.25 South Africa, a developing
region, was in fifth place with a total sample size of 752. The region is considering advancing economic challenges within
the 4IR and leveraging these technologies to alleviate unemployment challenges, despite lacking key infrastructure and
basic information and communication technology (ICT) skills.48
Overall, there appears to be a strong mix of where the studies were conducted based on the publication count and
sample sizes of the studies, showing that several regions are channeling their efforts to leveraging these technologies on
an organizational level. For a detailed distribution per study region, see Appendix C.
Continuing with the regional categories, the main authors’ countries of affiliation follow similar trends, with a
concentration in Asia. The details are contained in Appendix D. The distribution of the main authors can be seen
in Figure 3. Factoring in the countries’ affiliated authors by the sample sizes of the studies resulted in Malaysia tak-
ing first place (1555), followed by India (1547), and Australia (960). Using citation count as a metric gave Malaysian
authors the most citations (322), followed by the UK (220), and Brazil (204). In terms of the main author’s institu-
tion, the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia was ranked highest with a publication count of five. The Xiamen University
Malaysia, University of New South Wales, University of Johannesburg, University of Cambridge, and the National Insti-
tute of Industrial Engineering were involved in at least two of the studies when the affiliation of the main authors
was considered. However, the Xiamen University Malaysia had the most citations at 265, followed by the University
of Cambridge with 190 citations. This is important to note as academic institutions are often strongly affiliated with
research and development (R&D) institutions, including 4IR R&D. The leaders and associated information can be seen
in Appendix E.
FIGURE 4 Distribution of articles by year of publication. Source: Tableau
3.2 Distribution by date
Publications were staggered in 2016. This could be attributed to the origins of the publications and time required to apply
and conceptualize the overall impacts of emerging technologies. The distribution per publication can be seen in Figure 4.
Despite recent growth in this area from 12 in 2019 to 27 in 2021, there is great potential for more research, especially when
considering the low numbers identified for 2022.
3.3 Primary technology adoption models used
The primary underlying technology adoption model was noted for each study. In this regard, the technology-
organization-environment (TOE) model, with a publication count of 32, was the most predominant. This was followed
by the technology acceptance model (TAM) (25), the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTUAT) model
(6) and the diffusion of innovation (DOI) model (5). However, 66 of the 69 studies amended their models to a certain
extent, subsequently affecting the core constructs used. This was likely due to the need to address the rapid nature of
the paradigm under review. When considering this, mixed models were also assessed and incorporated, resulting in 120
models being integrated within the 69 studies. The most-used model remained the TOE, with a total count of 41 across
the publications. Second was the TAM at a count of 31. This was followed by the UTAUT and DOI models, with counts
of 16 and 13, respectively. These are briefly covered to provide context. Various other models also featured. However, low
usage resulted in minimal constructs stemming from those models. Consequently, they were not covered.
The TOE framework was founded by Tornatzky and Fleischer17 and it was designed for an enterprise level of
analysis.49 The framework proposes generic innovation adoption factors within the dimensions of technology, orga-
nization, and the environment, with sub-factors within each. The technological dimension describes the relevance
of new technologies.30 The organizational factors focus more on the enterprise’s resources, which enable adoption,
such as experience, relative advantage, and capabilities.50 The third dimension, environmental factors, considers the
context within which the organization operates. In the ever-digitalized world, this is changing, as key focus areas
are changing.10 However, due to the unstable nature of the environment, there have been several extensions to the
model to ensure that it considers underlying impacts and constructs that are meaningful in effectively utilizing tech-
nologies through adoption.35 As a result of the extensive modifications, it remains the most applied, even in the
4IR context.10
The TAM, which was founded by Davis,14 has seen several versions applied to different technologies over the years
and is widely accepted in information systems literature. It considers the relationship among variables such as perceived
usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEoU), and behavioral intention (BI). Within the 4IR, it has been applied to sev-
eral studies. A reason for this is that it examines the end-user acceptance of technologies and systems based on certain
characteristics, where organizations need to consider individual levels of accepting smart technologies to expedite
their adoption.51
Several models exist to explain technology adoption in achieving the benefits they bring. A model that incorporated
several of these was the UTAUT model of Venkatesh et al.,18 which conducted empirical studies to synthesize behavioral
intentions. This model facilitates various other models, such as a combined TAM-theory of planned behavior (TPB),52
the model of PC utilization (MPCU),53 the motivational model (MM)54 and the social cognitive theory (SCT).53 It also
includes core constructs from the theory of reasoned action (TRA)55 and the TPB.52
Rogers16 proposed the following interplaying factors of innovation, which are synonymous with those of the TOE
framework56 : relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Notwithstanding, he proposed
that attributes of innovation can predict the rate of adoption of innovations, where the rate of adoption is “the relative
speed with which an innovation is adopted by a member of a social system”.16 This is strongly associated with technology,
as the two are synonymous with cause-effect relations. For these studies, the technology itself was often hardware or
software, where it has proven to be helpful for comparing degrees of adoption, which aids in understanding overall levels
of maturity.57
3.4 Subject areas identified
Another contextual factor assessed was subject area. For this study, 16 subject areas were identified. When considering
the sample size of each study, the most predominant subject area was manufacturing, with a sample size of 2142. This
can be attributed to the optimization organizations are looking to achieve within I4.0, which is a subcategory of the 4IR,
as noted by Yaacob and Thing.58 The premise, though, is the utilization of smart technologies to expand operational effi-
ciencies, in several instances automation.25 This was followed by business administration and supply chain management
(SCM), which had a count of 1979 and 1908, respectively. Business administration aligns to this study, demonstrating
organizations’ drive to engage with 4IR technologies and guide strategy transformation and business model reinvention.59
The purpose of such research is to create and capture new forms of value through innovation.60 Part of such a strategy
is organizations’ SCM operations to deliver value. Education was fourth, with a sample size of 1359, as organizational
learning and the effects of the 4IR on education were considered at an organizational level.32 At a citation level, man-
ufacturing and business administration were the leaders with 579 and 307 citations, respectively. Finance, though, saw
much interest, with the third-highest number of citations (181), despite a publication count of only four. This could be
attributed to the large movements in banking and finance, which are being affected by the digital technology referred to
as blockchain.2,3 The details of subject area distribution can be seen in Appendix F.
The core model used in each subject area was based on the number of publications, as can be seen in Figure 5. In
this sense, the leading subject area was business administration, followed by manufacturing and SCM. Business admin-
istration had a mix between the four primary models identified, with TOE being the most applied model in seven
publications, while the TAM came second with its application in four publications. Manufacturing only applied the TOE
model and TAM in eight and five publications, respectively. SCM applied a mix of models. However, the TOE model was
the most used. Construction, agriculture, transportation, and pharmaceuticals only used the TOE model for organiza-
tional assessment. However, finance, which predominantly looked at blockchain, used the TAM, despite it influencing
the organizational level within the studies’ parameters. As such, there was a mixed model adoption across subject areas.
However, the TOE model was preferred in several areas.
3.5 Emerging technologies effectively adopted in the 4IR context
The emerging technologies that organizations have adopted in navigating the digital transformation were also assessed.
When considering the sample size of the studies assessed, the predominant technology was a combination of smart tech-
nologies of the 4IR at a sample size of 5052. As part of organizational movement, especially from within an information
systems perspective, the second-largest technology adopted was cloud computing at a sample size of 2426. A reason for
this is its enablement to not only integrate hardware and capture data for business intelligence, but also to replace legacy
systems and methods to optimize operations and deliver services in the ever-digitized environment in which businesses
operate.61,62 Another digital technology, blockchain, saw the third-largest sample size of 2149. In terms of the number of
FIGURE 5 Model count to subject area. Source: Tableau
citations, the prevalent interest was in smart technologies, followed by blockchain with 416 citations and cloud computing
with 249 citations. These details are reviewed in Appendix G.
In terms of the number of publications, smart technologies accounted for 40.6% (28) of the studies assessed. Of these,
the TOE was the highest applied core model at 18, followed by TAM at five. As with sample size, cloud computing was
second in terms of publication count, with five publications using the TOE model, but seven using the TAM. This could
be attributed to the needs of the users being assessed and the replacement of existing systems.10 In third position was
blockchain, with the TOE model counting for five publications, yet four publications made use of the UTAUT model. This
could be due to the impact of its application on organizations. However, since it is complex, it has seen predominant use
considering several constructs from existing models. IoT, which is primarily hardware focused, saw the application of the
TAM with a publication count of seven applied to understand its users and the impacts it has on an individual level. The
models applied and associated technologies based on publication count can be seen in Figure 6.
3.6 Comparison of subject area and technology adopted
Technologies adopted were compared in relation to subject areas based on publication count. This was to note whether
there were any specific organizational concentrations to subject areas, and the technologies that are considered in this
paradigm. As with Figure 6, the subject distribution remained the same, but the technology adopted was incorporated in
the comparison, as can be seen in Figure 7. Business administration had a focus on 4IR smart technologies, but also an
equal distribution between blockchain, a digital technology, and IoT, which is more hardware focused. Manufacturing
also incorporated smart technologies with an array of distribution. SCM focused on blockchain technologies since several
studies looked to optimize existing systems or address redundancies in lead times.63
3.7 Constructs identified that influence 4IR technology adoption
Using meta-synthesis, influential constructs of each model were extracted from the articles. As mentioned, models were
modified within the research studies to address the changing dynamics of the environment in which businesses operate.
KRUGER and STEYN
Model application to technology per publication count. Source: Tableau
Technology concentration per subject area. Source: Tableau

FIGURE 6
FIGURE 7
10 of 31
However, certain researchers referred to certain factors differently, despite sharing commonalities in their description.
For example, the adoption of digital technologies such as cloud computing or blockchain have differences in government
policies, compliance and regulations. In other words, there regulatory environment. As such, this was combined into reg-
ulations and policy (RP). Consequently, similar areas were combined as far as possible to ensure that the dimensions and
associated models were correctly captured. Moreover, as the TOE was the predominant model, the dimensions of tech-
nology, organization and the environment were also assigned.10,30 Technologies’ impacts on individuals were classified
under technology dimensions, whereas internal resources and impacts such as staff competence were logged as organiza-
tional dimensions.32 The intricate synthesis of influential constructed is presented in Table 2, showing an organized view
of the 406 influential constructs extracted from the 69 studies. Where four or more constructs were identified, they were
tabulated, including the number of times they appeared (count), name, and description of what the construct entails.
Based on the papers assessed, hypothesis was developed within the context of the 4IR. Finally, the associated model and
dimension of application is presented in Table 2.
4 DISCUSSION
This study assessed influential technology adoption models and associated constructs within the context of the 4IR.
Insights were developed using a SLR methodology, where the content of 69 papers published between 2016 and 2022
were reviewed in depth using meta-synthesis. The timeframe was based on the 4IR paradigm’s mainstream acceptance.
It was found that the paradigm has seen significant interest across sectors as the emerging technologies it brings has cre-
ated new business opportunities across economies.82 The reason: to enable coordinated efforts towards a future ready
business, as the 4IR and aspects of I4.0 can increase sales, drive growth, and automate functions for cost efficiencies,83
changing aspects of their strategies and associated business models.
To understand and address the potential of these technologies, leaders across fields of play have used technology
adoption models,60 albeit amended versions, to gain a competitive advantage. Dressler and Paunovic59 emphasized this,
noting that a more integrated approach to technology, as well as business operations, is required at a strategic level in
the 4IR paradigm. Moreover, emerging technologies driving this paradigm are disruptive and smart, affecting not only
the way business is conducted, but the very future of work. Laato et al.84 mentioned that a major barrier is cultural lag,
which influences overall technology acceptance across the organization, and may hamper future-of-work readiness levels.
Consequently, the synthesized technology adoption constructs of this study present strong indicators for future of work
readiness from an organizational perspective.
From a geographical perspective, India was found to be the leader in terms of where the study was conducted per
publication count. A reason for this is the regions support of emerging technology as noted by Mitra et al.46 Unsurprisingly,
Malaysia was found to be the leader where the sample size of the applicable study was extracted as the region has seen
major technology trends in terms of adoption and the drive towards industrialization in various sectors. This could be
attributed to specific efforts to enhance the use of emerging technologies such as dedicated innovation hubs and resource
allocation that have been shown to be effective in addressing key technology adoption constructs.30 Notwithstanding,
Asian regions are well represented in terms of the institutions of the authors’ affiliations. Both these leaders and several
other regions were found to be channeling their efforts to leverage emerging technologies on an organizational level.
This is critical as the digital transformation has been shown to reduce geographical barriers, expanding global reach and
the associated competitors of organizations in this interconnected paradigm.85 Consequently, the study has a reasonable
spread across both developed and developing regions. However, as was seen from the findings, developed regions remain
strongholds in their organizational ability to effectively use and adopt emerging technologies.
The spread of technology within this paradigm was extensive, ranging from the automation of systems25 to remotely
monitoring and controlling entire infrastructure from a mobile device.86 This shows that the emerging technology is
changing the way we work by reducing barriers to access and control systems. However, organizations must consider
several models and select the appropriate technology adoption theory. Prior knowledge confirms that multiple levels of
analysis are required, from an organizational context to an individual level of analysis, that impact the effectiveness of
adoption. A challenge here is that of the 69 studies, 66 amended their models in some form, affecting the core constructs
used to address the rapid nature of the 4IR paradigm.
The next two themes that were assessed related to the subject areas identified and the 4IR technologies adopted.
Business administration was the most predominant subject area, showing organizational drive to take up 4IR technolo-
gies. This requires strategy transformation and business model reinvention to create and capture new forms of value.
T A B L E 2 Construct distribution usage, description, influence, associated model and dimension
12 of 31
Construct Description Hypothesis developed Associated model/s Dimension
Technological Technological capabilities refer to the skills and overall technology TOE, DOI, TAM Organization
capabilities (TC) affinity of the organization’s employees.17,30 It is strongly
associated with digital transformation expertise in the 4IR.64
It also refers to Rogers’ consumer perceived innovativeness
(CPI),16 where it demonstrates the ease with which users take to
a new technology and how quickly it will be consumed.
Newness and improvements of emerging technologies such as
AI, IoT and blockchain can expect individuals with higher
degrees of consumer perceived innovativeness to demonstrate
quicker adoption.65
Count = 51 Organizational capabilities (OC), also referred to as organizational (1) Technological capabilities of organizations and their
readiness, is strongly related to technological capabilities. It employees positively affects adoption in the 4IR.
refers to the skills and knowledge of an organization’s
employees, but also to the technical infrastructure that
facilitates technological integration and overall performance.30
As such, competencies increase alongside an organization’s
employees, making it a complex facet.27
To support technological capabilities, research argued that vendor (2) New forms of education or micro credentials can
support (VS) plays a critical role, where knowledge assimilated improve perceived usefulness with vendor support.
by employees with collaboration can increase their skills
towards perceived usefulness.51,66
Relative Relative advantage refers to the degree to which an adopter, or (1) Relative advantage as a hedonic motivator positively TAM, DOI, UTAUT Technology
advantage (RA) user, perceives the benefits of a technology. This includes its affects technology adoption.
features or abilities to enhance an existing system.16
Count = 33 This also refers to hedonic motivations on both an individual and (2) 4IR has calculated risk. However, its adoption has
organizational level, where alternative options may prove to be long-term benefits towards relative advantage.
better, resulting in relative advantage being a critical innovation
adoption and usage factor to drive economic performance.67
Notwithstanding, previous studies have shown that relative (3) 4IR facilitates the creation of new market segments
advantage relates positively to perceived usefulness and in terms of relative advantage.
perceived ease of use.49 It is also related to relative value and
value creation68,69
Perceived Perceived usefulness explains the degree to which a new (1) Perceived usefulness or benefits of technology can TAM, UTUAT Technology
usefulness (PU) technology is perceived to be better than its counterparts to facilitate operational efficiencies or value creation in
improve job performance.14 This can look to address user new ways within the 4IR.
frustrations and employee capabilities, which is critical for
business success in developing competitive advantage.50
KRUGER and STEYN
(Continues)
T A B L E 2 (Continued)
Count = 31 Perceived usefulness shares similarities with performance

KRUGER and STEYN
expectancy (PE) and extrinsic motivation.18
Perceived ease of Perceived ease of use is a critical adoption predictor, where (1) Perceived ease of use or level of effort in using or TAM, DOI Technology
use (PEoU) difficult or sophisticated systems inhibit users’ adoption.14 manipulating a “smart” emerging technology affects
Count = 29 Perceived ease of use is the sense of ease, or level of effort a new its adoption.
system or technology would have. It has strong associations with
effort expectancy, control, perceived simplicity, anxiety and
perceptions of control.18
Facilitating Venkatesh et al.18 identified facilitating conditions (FC). This is (1) Perceived compatibility of new technology and level DOI, UTAUT Technology
conditions (FC) defined as the level or degree to which an individual believes an of integration positively impacts its adoption, which is
Count = 25 organization can support the technologies’ integration into supported by facilitating conditions.
existing systems or its ability to create new ones. It relates to
concepts of DOI’s behavioral control and C-TAM-TPB.
It is also known as compatibility, which refers to the degree to (2) More systems and levels of integration make
which the technology or innovation fits the adopter’s existing facilitating conditions poor, negatively affecting
framework, including need. It also pertains to the technologies’ adoption.
fit within an organization.70 In this sense, it is the compatibility
of the technology within existing systems and structures.16
Trust (TT) Trust demonstrates the user’s affinity to believe in the safety or (1) High levels of trust support the organization or its TOE Technology
Count = 20 levels of risk associated with a technology. In the 4IR, this users’ technology adoption. In the 4IR, this includes
includes data privacy.71 In several instances, studies refer to the data privacy and cybersecurity protection.
security and privacy of not only user data, but also of the
organization.3 The protection of data privacy and cybersecurity
policies ensures certain levels of trust.72 This impact influences
emerging technologies, as it creates more access points and data,
making it a worthy note for future models and to ensure that all
vulnerabilities are addressed.73
External The external environment is something the organization cannot (1) Environmental impacts and sustainable outcomes TOE Environment
environment necessarily control but impacts on its operations. This includes support technology adoption. (2) Blurring
(EE) Count = 18 market conditions and readiness to accept smart technologies, geographical boundaries and the drive for
and the impact they have on sustainable outcomes.8 Key to this environmentally sustainable solutions of the 4IR are
is energy usage and other impacts on the environment as expanding the external environment that
natural resources diminish and populations increase.22 It is organizations need to consider.
strongly associated with competitive pressure within the market
environment.
(Continues)
13 of 31
14 of 31
Top management Top management support refers to the level of engagement, (1) Organizations with strong top management support TOE Organization
support (TMS) support and encouragement provided by various levels of are more likely to successfully adopt smart 4IR
Count = 18 management within an organization. This is achieved by technologies.
ensuring clear communication, fairness and alignment to its
vision.19,74
It can also impact cultures, values and social norms within the
organization. Top management support can permeate the
regulations, policies and overall procedures needed by
organizations and that impact their users.63
Behavioral Behavioral intention refers to the user’s actual intent to adopt (1) Behavioral intention to adopt is impacted by various TAM, UTAUT, DOI, TOE Technology
intention (BI) or use technologies. Several constructs drive the achievement factors in the 4IR.
Count = 16 of users’ and businesses’ behavioral intention.16,18
Competitive Competitive pressure refers to the degree of pressure that an (1) Competitors who mimic actions could place pressure TOE Environment
pressure (CP) organization or company has from competitors within its on organizations to adopt smart technologies.
industry. With the encroaching 4IR, the lines between
industries and disciplines are blurring, giving rise to
pressures from new competitors like never before.2
Count = 13 Through the adoption of smart technologies and their (2) Industry competitors change quickly as they enter
integration into existing information systems, organizations new markets.
could create new ways of outperforming their competitors
and enabling penetration into new markets.75
Complexity Complexity is also strongly associated with effort expectancy (1) Organizations are prone to adopt technologies that TAM, UTUAT Technology
Count = 13 and perceived ease of use. It is the inverse of perceived optimize systems and make them less complex.
usefulness, as tasks with a high complexity are argued to
hinder adopted progression18
Social influence Social influence is synonymous with subjective norms, culture, (1) Social influence positively affects technology UTAUT Organization
(SI) Count =13 and observability.16 These, in turn, influence the overall adoption when there are cohesive norms and cultures
perceived social status and how others can be seen in a that are inclined to innovation within the organization.
certain context.52 Social influence represents people and
group opinions, where some are superior to others.
Regulations and Also associated with normative pressure, regulations and (1) Regulations and policy can drive adoption if well TOE Environment
policy (RP) policy govern the associations, frameworks, permissions, formulated to develop and introduce smart
Count = 12 legalities and supportive mechanisms in the region in which technologies towards sustainable development.
an organization operates. These can include economic and
budgetary policies that support, or hinder, organizational
growth.76,77
(Continues)
KRUGER and STEYN
KRUGER and STEYN
Cost Count = 12 Perceived financial cost refers to the cost of implementing a (1) Perceived cost will affect adoption, including that of TOE Technology
technology and the monetary benefits associated with it. It is business as it impacts return on investment (ROI).
also associated with relative advantage.2 Several studies have
noted that a higher level of perceived cost affects the overall
adoption of a technology, especially where the investment needs
to be justified to the managers. This means it has ties with top
management support.78
Triability Count = 6 Trialability refers to the level at which a technology or its (1) User experience can be optimized by allowing testing. DOI Technology
associated innovativeness may be used or tested before roll-out.
It has strong ties with user experience (UX).19,79
Size Count = 5 The organization’s size and economic footprint impacts its ability (1) Large organizations are more likely to adopt new TOE Organization
to quickly adopt technologies internally and produce it.17,80 This technologies with higher levels of commitment.
applies to academic institutions and governments, as larger
areas require more sophisticated systems and technologies than
smaller regions.28,36
Vendor support Vendor support is the level of collaborative support, or level of (1) Vendor support directly influences employees’ TOE Environment
(VS) Count = 4 access to skills available to the organization. In the context of the technological capabilities and adoption rates.
4IR, it has been noted as vital as financial support, where a lack
of external agents to guide usage and the adoption of smart
technologies, or the demonstration of its value, is a major
hinderance to adoption.81 Partnerships in university or other
R&D areas can develop employees’ skills, leadership and overall
adoption by guiding technology adoption and embedding smart
technologies towards value creation.60
15 of 31
Antecedents Intermediary process Outcome
Dimension Influential construct Weighting
Relative advantage (AKA Hedonic

15
Motivation)
Facilitating conditions (AKA Consumer

perceived innovateness or 10
compatibility)
Technology Trust 8
Complexity 5
Perceived usefulness (PU)
Cost 5 (AKA Performance expectancy
or Extrinsic motivation)
Triability 2 Intention to adoption (AKA
Behavioural intention)
Technological capabilities (TC) (AKA

21 Perceived ease of use (PEoU)
Organisational capabilities (OC))
(AKA Effort expectancy)
Top management support (TMS) 7

Organisation
Social influence (SI) 5
Size 2
External environment 7
Competitor pressure (AKA Mimic

5
pressure)
Environment
Regulations and policy (RP) 5
Vendor support (VS) 3
F I G U R E 8 Conceptual model for emerging technology adoption at an organizational level. Source: Reproduced with amendments
from Reference 10 page 3, with permission from Elsevier
The actual technologies assessed were widespread most likely attributable to their enablement towards integrating hard-
ware and capturing data for business intelligence, but also replacing legacy systems and methods to optimize operations
and deliver services in the ever-digitized environment in which businesses operate. The subject-to-technology mix sup-
ported this, as indicated in Figure 8. Between the subjects and technologies, there was a mixed model adoption. However,
TOE remained the preferred model in several areas. Considering the purpose of the study, this demonstrates that orga-
nizations are not only assessing one aspect of the 4IR, but several impacting technologies, which are both digital and
physical, to optimize existing systems or create new areas of value creation.59,87
The final component of the study – the primary research output – was the development of a conceptual model. Eigh-
teen constructs were identified and articulated across four categories based on the TOE model: technology, organization,
environment, and technology acceptance.26 These were the primary constructs of organizational studies identified within
the 4IR paradigm, which were weighted. The technology category describes the adoption of the technology both within
the organization and externally. The constructs that influence emerging technology adoption were identified as triability
(6), cost (12), trust (20), compatibility (25), and relative advantage (33). Although security in the digital age is a prevalent
topic that was placed under the category of trust, the largest influential construct was found to be relative advantage. A
possible explanation for this could be the recent focus on the 4IR and the value creation opportunities it brings, as well
as higher costs in terms of the required R&D.11 This reaches beyond mere usefulness. If this can be well conceptualized,
new market segments can be accessed.
Organizational factors focus on the availability of resources and the proficiency of such resources to create customer
value. Primary constructs identified at this level include enterprise scope, managerial beliefs, culture, mission,35 social
influences,13,16,18 and its structure. For this study, the size of the organization (5), social influence (13), top management
support (18), and technological capabilities (51) were identified as being influential. However, a lack of digital strategy
negatively affects emerging technology uptake.88 Moreover, an unclear financial plan and associated metrics to define
the ROI negatively impact their uptake.89,90 The social influence of the organization can support others’ beliefs towards
the awareness and possible benefits of emerging technology adoption. In this regard, leaders can influence the organiza-
tion’s employees. Top management support within this study supported this, as it was found to be an influential factor
in creating positive beliefs, even in the 4IR. Top management can support efforts by ensuring the financial and human
resources necessary for the paradigm’s effective adoption.91,92 Organizational learning has been noted to influence the
decision-making abilities of leaders and managers.32
Notwithstanding, the technological capabilities of the organization and its employees was the most influential in
this category. Within the 4IR, digital skills that ensure cross-functional synergy are vital, where innovation centres have
been shown to channel and support innovation and associated skills.60,93 Therefore, upskilling for the future of work is a
critical factor to ensure organizational readiness for the 4IR.84 Human capital is by no means a new concept. However,
with this paradigm, new workforce challenges and an entrepreneurial spirit are needed.94 A future area is the assessment
of “smart” technology adoption as it presents a key area to integrate and capture the individual’s role in ensuring that
organizations can leverage individual adoption in an organizational context. In the context of the acceptance of smart
technologies within the 4IR paradigm, the study identified key variables across three dimensions as influential.
The environmental context pertains to where the business operates, as well as impactful measures such as governmen-
tal incentives and regulations, especially where they are lacking.81 Within the 4IR, customer demands are ever-changing,
and barriers to switching are reducing. Moreover, competitors in the digital sphere are no longer limited by geographical
location, where socio-cultural issues and life cycle form part of the environment. The environment in developing coun-
tries is considered to have been left behind, including within the context of the 4IR with a lack of policies or guidance.11
This is because they struggle to adopt new technologies and fail to accelerate their adoption. This is especially true when
they are complex. For this study, vendor support (4), regulations and policy (12), competitive pressure (13), and external
environment (18) were identified as critical. Top management support is also critical to realize business effectiveness and
mobilize business activities or create new forms of value for relative advantage. Hence, strong leadership is considered
to have a moderate influence. Furthermore, the constructs have continued to receive not only scholarly interest, but also
interest in terms of their real-world application, with reference made to the SDGs in this regard.
From the constructs, and the rapidly changing nature of the 4IR, there were several extensions to the models to ensure
that they consider underlying impacts and constructs that are meaningful to effectively utilize technologies through adop-
tion. Subsequently, this affected the core constructs used, which was likely suitable to the rapid nature of the paradigm
under review. Technical capabilities played the most significant role in smart technologies within the 4IR paradigm. The
future of work has seen scholarly and global interest, which supports these findings. Neglecting these factors impedes
adoption. The largest nontechnical influential construct was found to be relative advantage. A possible explanation could
be the recent focus on the 4IR and the value-creation opportunities it brings with it, as well as higher costs in terms of
needed R&D.11 From these insights, a conceptual model was developed, as seen in Figure 8, with Table 2 providing an
overview of each construct, and a potential hypothesis for testing the model in new contexts.
The implications of these findings are that the 4IR has affected organizations’ strategic and tactical focus, where the
environment in which they operate is changing rapidly. This study presents key theoretical findings that can offer critical
relevance for predicting the adoption of emerging technologies and ensuring their successful implementation. These
findings include the following:
1. To navigate the impacts of the 4IR, there needs to be an enterprise level of innovation development using these emerg-
ing technologies. This depends largely on their ability to adopt the smart technologies of the 4IR paradigm, where the
constructs presented can act as a vital guide.
2. Business models will need to be reinvented to define how value is proposed, but also how the functional dynamics of
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, as key technology acceptance constructs, can be achieved. This will
require having a strong customer focus, where systems alleviate frustrations and are able to offer new forms of value
with their enabling features.
3. Vendor support and partnerships can look to support collaboration and access to positively manage R&D, as well
as eliminate wasteful expenditure. Within larger ecosystems, innovation mechanisms can be key facilitators for
future-of-work skills.
4. Strategically, there also needs to be a clear understanding and tracking of innovation metrics to define the ROI to
ensure that the right technology adoption focus areas are leveraged.
5. Understanding the relative advantage of the technology can aid in implementing it for the right customer or market
segment.
6. For future studies, there needs to be a review of the technological capabilities required of employees and leaders to use
technology towards innovation as we move into an ever-changing future of work.
Based on these impacts, the study can influence policy making at various levels, such as the national, regional, and
organizational level, to effectively harness the potential of these technologies and navigate the associated challenges.
Three examples can be cited:
1. National policy can be guided, where governments, as entities, can create policies that foster innovation and promote
the adoption of 4IR technologies. These policies may include investments in research and development, education and
skills development programs, incentives for the industry adoption of emerging technologies, and the establishment of
regulatory frameworks that address concerns related to privacy, security, and the ethical implications of technology
use. However, they need to account for unique challenges and opportunities within their specific geographical and
socio-economic contexts to devise tailored policies that support technology adoption, workforce reskilling and regional
economic development.
2. Sector-specific policy may face distinct challenges and opportunities when it comes to adopting 4IR technologies.
Policymakers need to understand these nuances to identify specific factors that drive technology adoption, such as the
support mechanisms identified.
3. Organizational policy can be used to regulate strategies for the adoption and integration of 4IR technologies. These
may include updating organizational structures, investing in employee training and development, implementing new
decision-making processes, and fostering a culture of innovation and adaptability.
5 CO N C LU S I O N
This study explored prevalent technology adoptions models and constructs considered vital at an organizational level,
augmenting scholarly understanding of this phenomenon within the context of the 4IR. This was done across six thematic
domains yielding several critical insights. Regionally, countries, are directing resources towards the integration of emerg-
ing technologies. Growth in this area has exhibited an exponential trajectory over the last few years, with potential for
expansion. A review of utilized models revealed that, though the TOE model is most prevalent, modifications were made
in 66 out of 69 examined articles. This illustrates the necessity for organizational agility to respond to the rapidly evolving
paradigm. There is a focus on manufacturing as the predominant subject area, reflecting an emphasis on optimization
efforts within this sector. Technologically, the incorporation of 4IR smart technologies appears to align with key accep-
tance constructs, underscoring the need for a holistic approach. Finally, the field of business administration emerged as
the most salient subject in relation to technology, revealing the imperative to transform business models as organizations
seek to adapt functional dynamics essential for navigating this complex paradigm. Based on a comprehensive synthesis
of these themes, we identified key constructs at an organizational level which were amalgamated to create a conceptual
model that equips organizations with insights needed to adapt and thrive in the dynamic landscape of the 4IR.
To this end, the study enriches existing literature on technology adoption, providing a model for organizations to
bolster innovation capabilities by aggregating what is considered critical in explaining, supporting, and predicting the
adoption of emerging technologies. This includes effectively adopting emerging technologies while simultaneously rein-
venting business models with a focus on customer value, perceived usefulness, and ease of use. The study showed that
collaboration through vendor support and strategic partnerships, along with effective R&D management and a focus on
ROI will be key in unlocking the full potential of 4IR technologies. The understanding of relative technological advan-
tages, as well as an emphasis on leadership and employee capabilities, will further aid in this adoption. Within larger
ecosystems, innovation mechanisms can play a pivotal role in facilitating the development of future work skills to address
one of the most influential constructs: technological capability.
From a policy making perspective, the study highlights the critical need for interventions at national, regional, and
organizational levels to foster innovation by promoting 4IR technology adoption. However, the complexity of adopting
these technologies requires a nuanced approach that accounts for the unique challenges and opportunities within specific
contexts, from geographical and socio-economic considerations to sector-specific dynamics. Overall, a coordinated and
tailored strategy that aligns technological innovation, business model transformation, and supportive policies will be
essential in fully harnessing the potential of the 4IR and paving the way for a future-ready workforce and organizational
landscape.
Although striving for academic rigor, there are limitations to this study. First, there may be a publication bias, as only
published articles were assessed, which may have led to the researchers overlooking critical articles in other formats,
such as White Papers or conference proceedings that were outside the scope of the databases selected. There may also
be a language bias, as only English was selected, limiting the perspectives and regional attributes of constructs and their
applications. The quality of the included studies may vary, impacting the reliability of the findings. Subjectivity in the
meta-synthesis may have limited objectivity, despite the efforts and processes followed. The limited search terms may
have excluded relevant studies that may have used different terminologies, resulting in an incomplete synthesis of results.
There was also difficulty in comparing the studies, as several used differing contexts, designs, methodologies, and sur-
vey tools. Furthermore, although the authors made an effort to exclude predatory journals from the current study, the
dynamic nature of predatory publishing practices may affect the research landscape. The temporal scope of the study was
a limitation, as more recent studies may have been published between the time of the data collection and the publica-
tion of this study. Finally, the broad guidelines may not adequately address the diverse and complex nature of different
industrial sectors, organizational sizes, or regional contexts.
5.1 Future research
To address these limitations and the scope of the study, future research in the field of technology adoption models and
their constructs should consider addressing several critical aspects that emerged from the limitations of the current study.
First, it is essential to recognize that the assessed models and their constructs may be subject to criticism due to potential
oversimplification. Thus, future research should aim to develop more nuanced models that account for the complexities
inherent in technology adoption processes. Second, it is crucial to empirically test the individual factors or constructs iden-
tified in different sectors to validate the model’s applicability and generalizability. This would provide a stronger empirical
basis for understanding the dynamics of technology adoption in various settings. Third, future research should explore
the role of data privacy and cybersecurity policies in fostering trust in technology adoption processes. Investigating how
these policies can contribute to the successful implementation of emerging technologies is a critical area that deserves
further attention. Finally, technological competence required for employees and leaders to utilize technology for innova-
tion as we move towards an ever-changing future of work can contribute to a comprehensive and effective approach to
technology adoption in the context of the 4IR.
AU THOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Sean Kruger: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (lead); formal analysis (lead); investigation (lead); methodology
(lead); resources (equal); software (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – original draft (lead); writ-
ing – review and editing (lead). Adriana A. Steyn: Conceptualization (equal); methodology (supporting); supervision
(lead); writing – review and editing (supporting).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the editors and library staff who assisted in this study.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

To the knowledge of the authors, no conflicting interests are present.
PEER REVIEW
The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.
1002/eng2.12762.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are being reviewed under the University of Pretoria’s FigShare instance,
and will be accessible on this platform once processed.
ORCID
Sean Kruger https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6830-8499
Adriana A. Steyn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9841-2497
REFERENCES
1. Alawadhi M, Almazrouie J, Kamil M, Khalil KA. A systematic literature review of the factors influencing the adoption of autonomous
driving. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag. 2020;11(6):1065-1082. doi:10.1007/s13198-020-00961-4
2. Wong LW, Leong LY, Hew JJ, Tan GWH, Ooi KB. Time to seize the digital evolution: adoption of blockchain in operations and supply
chain management among Malaysian SMEs. Int J Inf Manag. 2020;52:101997. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.005
3. Wong LW, Tan GWH, Lee VH, Ooi KB, Sohal A. Unearthing the determinants of Blockchain adoption in supply chain management. Int
J Prod Res. 2020;58(7):2100-2123. doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1730463
4. Kruger S, Steyn AA. Innovation environment’s role in supporting industry 4.0 technology adoption to address effects of COVID-19. Int
J Innov Technol Manag. 2022;19:2242001. doi:10.1142/S0219877022420019
5. Piccialli F, Di Cola VS, Giampaolo F, Cuomo S. The role of artificial intelligence in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Inf Syst Front.
2021;23(6):1467-1497. doi:10.1007/s10796-021-10131-x
6. Gkika EC, Anagnostopoulos T, Ntanos S, Kyriakopoulos GL. User preferences on cloud computing and open innovation: a case study for
university employees in Greece. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex. 2020;6(2):41. doi:10.3390/joitmc6020041
7. Oke A, Fernandes FAP. Innovations in teaching and learning: exploring the perceptions of the education sector on the 4th industrial
revolution (4IR). J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex. 2020;6(2):31. doi:10.3390/JOITMC6020031
8. Ahmad S, Miskon S, Alabdan R, Tlili I. Statistical assessment of business intelligence system adoption model for sustainable textile and
apparel industry. IEEE Access. 2021;9:106560-106574. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3100410
9. Ganzarain J, Errasti N. Three stage maturity model in SME’s towards industry 4.0. J Ind Eng Manag. 2016;9(5):1119-1128.
doi:10.3926/jiem.2073
10. Chatterjee S, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK, Baabdullah AM. Understanding AI adoption in manufacturing and production firms using an
integrated TAM-TOE model. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2021;170:120880. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120880
11. Khayer A, Jahan N, Hossain MN, Hossain MY. The adoption of cloud computing in small and medium enterprises: a developing country
perspective. VINE J Inf Knowl Manag Syst. 2021;51(1):64-91. doi:10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2019-0064
12. Bag S, Yadav G, Dhamija P, Kataria KK. Key resources for industry 4.0 adoption and its effect on sustainable production and circular
economy: an empirical study. J Clean Prod. 2021;281:125233. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125233
13. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Human Decis Process. 1991;50(1991):179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
14. Davis F. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. thesis.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1985.
15. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: an Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley; 1975.
16. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. Free Press; 2003.
17. Tornatzky LG, Fleischer M. The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington Books; 1990.
18. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q.
2003;27(3):425-478.
19. Mohammed F, Ibrahim O, Ithnin N. Factors influencing cloud computing adoption for e-government implementation in developing
countries: instrument development. J Syst Inf Technol. 2016;18(3):297-327. doi:10.1108/JSIT-01-2016-0001
20. Venkatesh V, Davis FD, Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field
studies. Manag Sci. 2016;46(2):186-204.
21. Vial G. Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2019;28:118-144.
doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
22. Jayashree S, Hassan Reza MN, Malarvizhi CAN, Maheswari H, Hosseini Z, Kasim A. Article the impact of technological innovation on
industry 4.0 implementation and sustainability: an empirical study on Malaysian small and medium sized enterprises. Sustainability.
2021;13(18):10115. doi:10.3390/su131810115
23. Kamble SS, Gunasekaran A, Gawankar SA. Sustainable industry 4.0 framework: a systematic literature review identifying the current
trends and future perspectives. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2018;117:408-425. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2018.05.009
24. da Xu L, Xu EL, Li L. Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends. Int J Prod Res. 2018;56(8):2941-2962.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1444806
25. Cao D, Tao H, Wang Y, Tarhini A, Xia S. Acceptance of automation manufacturing technology in China: an examination of perceived
norm and organizational efficacy. Prod Plan Control. 2020;31(8):660-672. doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1669091
26. Pasi BN, Mahajan SK, Rane SB. The current sustainability scenario of industry 4.0 enabling technologies in Indian manufacturing
industries. Int J Product Perform Manag. 2020;70(5):1017-1048. doi:10.1108/IJPPM-04-2020-0196
27. Cimini C, Boffelli A, Lagorio A, Kalchschmidt M, Pinto R. How do industry 4.0 technologies influence organisational change? An
empirical analysis of Italian SMEs. J Manuf Technol Manag. 2021;32(3):695-721. doi:10.1108/JMTM-04-2019-0135
28. Eze SC, Olatunji S, Chinedu-Eze VC, Bello AO. Key success factors influencing SME managers’ information behaviour on emerging ICT
(EICT) adoption decision-making in UK SMEs. Bottom Line. 2018;31(4):250-275. doi:10.1108/BL-02-2018-0008
29. Kruger S, Steyn A. A conceptual model of entrepreneurial competencies needed to utilise technologies of industry 4.0. Int J Entrep Innov.
2020;22(1):56-67. doi:10.1177/1465750320927359
30. Salimon MG, Kareem O, Mokhtar SSM, Aliyu OA, Bamgbade JA, Adeleke AQ. Malaysian SMEs m-commerce adoption: TAM 3, UTAUT
2 and TOE approach. J Sci Technol Policy Manag. 2021;14(1):98-126. doi:10.1108/JSTPM-06-2019-0060
31. Kumar S, Raut RD, Nayal K, Kraus S, Yadav VS, Narkhede BE. To identify industry 4.0 and circular economy adoption barriers in the
agriculture supply chain by using ISM-ANP. J Clean Prod. 2021;293:126023. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126023
32. Tortorella GL, Vergara C, Mac A, Garza-Reyes JA, Sawhney R. Organizational learning paths based upon industry 4.0 adoption: an
empirical study with Brazilian manufacturers. Int J Prod Econ. 2020;219:284-294. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.023
33. Ancarani A, Di Mauro C, Mascali F. Backshoring strategy and the adoption of industry 4.0: evidence from Europe. J World Bus.
2019;54(4):360-371. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2019.04.003
34. Choudhury A, Behl A, Sheorey PA, Pal A. Digital supply chain to unlock new agility: a TISM approach. Benchmarking.
2021;28(6):2075-2109. doi:10.1108/BIJ-08-2020-0461
35. Awa HO, Ojiabo OU, Orokor LE. Integrated technology-organization-environment (T-O-E) taxonomies for technology adoption. J Enterp
Inf Manag. 2017;30(6):893-921. doi:10.1108/JEIM-03-2016-0079
36. Ricci R, Battaglia D, Neirotti P. External knowledge search, opportunity recognition and industry 4.0 adoption in SMEs. Int J Prod Econ.
2021;240:108234. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108234
37. Taherdoost H. A critical review of Blockchain acceptance models—Blockchain technology adoption frameworks and applications.
Comput Secur. 2022;11(2):24. doi:10.3390/computers11020024
38. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Academia and clinic annals of internal medicine preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-269.
39. Ellis TJ, Levy Y. Framework of problem-based research: a guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem.
Informing Sci. 2008;11:17-33. doi:10.28945/438
40. Luxton-Reilly A, Simon AI, Becker BA, et al. Introductory programming: a systematic literature review. Annual Conference on Innovation
and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE); 2018. doi:10.1145/3293881.3295779
41. Kitchenham B. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering; 2007. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/302924724
42. Schwab K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Publishing; 2017.
43. Hermann M, Pentek T, Otto B. Design principles for Industrie 4.0 scenarios: a literature review. In: 2016 49th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, USA; 2016:3928-3937. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.29269.22248
44. Liao Y, Deschamps F, Loures E d FR, Ramos LFP. Past, present and future of industry 4.0 – a systematic literature review and research
agenda proposal. Int J Prod Res. 2017;55(12):3609-3629. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576
45. Oliveira T, Martins MF. Information technology adoption models at firm level: review of literature. Proceedings of the 4th European
Conference on Information Management and Evaluation (ECIME); 2010:312-322.
46. Mitra T, Kapoor R, Gupta N. Studying key antecedents of disruptive technology adoption in the digital supply chain: an Indian
perspective. Int J Emerg Mark. 2022. doi:10.1108/IJOEM-07-2021-1052
47. Dutta G, Kumar R, Sindhwani R, Singh RK. Digital transformation priorities of India’s discrete manufacturing SMEs – a conceptual study
in perspective of industry 4.0. Compet Rev. 2020;30:289-314. doi:10.1108/CR-03-2019-0031
48. Prinsloo J, Vosloo JC, Mathews EH. Towards industry 4.0: a roadmap for the south African heavy industry sector. S Afr J Ind Eng.
2019;30(3):174-186. doi:10.7166/30-3-2237
49. Gangwar H, Date H. Critical factors of cloud computing adoption in organizations: an empirical study. Global Bus Rev. 2016;17(4):886-904.
doi:10.1177/0972150916645692
50. Khalid M, Abas M, Aizan Yahaya R, She M, Din F. Digital literacy and its relationship with employee performance in the 4IR. J Int Bus
Econ Entrep. 2019;4(2):29-37. doi:10.24191/jibe.v4i2.14312
51. Kamble SS, Gunasekaran A, Kumar V, Belhadi A, Foropon C. A machine learning based approach for predicting blockchain adoption in
supply chain. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2021;163:120465. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120465
52. Taylor S, Todd P. Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: a study of consumer adoption intentions. Int
J Res Mark. 1995;12(2):137-155. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(94)00019-K
53. Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM. Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q. 1991;15(1):125-142.
doi:10.2307/249443
54. Vallerand RJ. Toward a hierarchial model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In: Zanna M, ed. Advances in Experimental Psychology.
Academic Press; 1997:271-360.
55. Sheppard BH, Hartwick J, Warshaw PR. The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for
modifications and future research. J Consum Res. 1988;15(3):325-343. doi:10.1086/209170
56. Karamchandani A, Srivastava SK, Srivastava RK. Perception-based model for analyzing the impact of enterprise blockchain adoption on
SCM in the Indian service industry. Int J Inf Manag. 2020;52:102019. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.10.004
57. Vaittinen E, Martinsuo M, Ortt R. Business customers’ readiness to adopt manufacturer’s new services. J Serv Theory Pract.
2018;28(1):52-78. doi:10.1108/JSTP-03-2017-0053
58. Yaacob MH, Thing NS. A systematic literature review of industry 4.0: bridging between the information asymmetry and corporate
governance. J Inf Knowl Manag. 2021;11(1):32-43.
59. Dressler M, Paunovic I. Converging and diverging business model innovation in regional intersectoral cooperation–exploring wine
industry 4.0. Eur J Innov Manag. 2020;24(5):1625-1652. doi:10.1108/EJIM-04-2020-0142
60. Kruger S, Steyn AA. Enhancing technology transfer through entrepreneurial development: practices from innovation spaces. J Technol
Transf . 2019;45(6):1655-1689. doi:10.1007/s10961-019-09769-2
61. Al Hadwer A, Tavana M, Gillis D, Rezania D. A systematic review of organizational factors impacting cloud-based technology adoption
using technology-organization-environment framework. Internet of Things. 2021;15:100407. doi:10.1016/j.iot.2021.100407
62. Eldalabeeh AR, Al-Shbail MO, Almuiet MZ, Baker MB, E’leimat D. Cloud-based accounting adoption in Jordanian financial sector.
J Asian Finance Econ Bus. 2021;8(2):833-849. doi:10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no2.0833
63. Krishnan S, Gupta S, Kaliyan M, Kumar V, Garza-Reyes JA. Assessing the key enablers for industry 4.0 adoption using MICMAC analysis:
a case study. Int J Product Perform Manag. 2021;70(5):1049-1071. doi:10.1108/IJPPM-02-2020-0053
64. Narula S, Puppala H, Kumar A, et al. Applicability of industry 4.0 technologies in the adoption of global reporting initiative standards
for achieving sustainability. J Clean Prod. 2021;305:127141. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127141
65. Nikou S. Factors driving the adoption of smart home technology: an empirical assessment. Telemat Inform. 2019;45:101283.
doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.101283
66. Al-marsy A, Chaudhary P, Rodger JA. A model for examining challenges and opportunities in use of cloud computing for health
information systems. Appl Syst Innov. 2021;4(1):1-20. doi:10.3390/asi4010015
67. Chohan SR, Hu G. Success factors influencing citizens’ adoption of IoT service orchestration for public value creation in smart
government. IEEE Access. 2020;8:208427-208448. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3036054
68. Gangwar H, Date H, Ramaswamy R. Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model.
J Enterp Inf Manag. 2015;28(1):107-130. doi:10.1108/JEIM-08-2013-0065
69. Masood T, Sonntag P. Industry 4.0: adoption challenges and benefits for SMEs. Comput Ind. 2020;121:103261.
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2020.103261
̌
70. Cater ̌
T, Cater ̌
B, Cerne M, Koman M, Redek T. Industry 4.0 technologies usage: motives and enablers. J Manuf Technol Manag.
2021;32(9):323-345. doi:10.1108/JMTM-01-2021-0026
71. AlHogail A. Improving IoT technology adoption through improving consumer trust. Dent Tech. 2018;6(3):64.
doi:10.3390/technologies6030064
72. Shin J, Park Y, Lee D. Who will be smart home users? An analysis of adoption and diffusion of smart homes. Technol Forecast Soc Change.
2018;134(6):246-253. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.029
73. Mariani MM, Ek Styven M, Teulon F. Explaining the intention to use digital personal data stores: an empirical study. Technol Forecast
Soc Change. 2021;166:120657. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120657
74. Hsieh MY. Interdisciplinarily exploring the most potential IoT technology determinants in the omnichannel e-commerce purchasing
decision-making processes. Appl Sci. 2020;10(2):603. doi:10.3390/app10020603
75. Nguyen XT, Luu QK. Factors affecting adoption of industry 4.0 by small-and medium-sized enterprises: a case in Ho chi minh city,
Vietnam. J Asian Finance Econ Bus. 2020;7(6):255-264. doi:10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO6.255
76. Alghushami AH, Zakaria NH, Aji ZM. Factors influencing cloud computing adoption in higher education institutions of least developed
countries: evidence from Republic of Yemen. Appl Sci. 2020;10(22):1-27. doi:10.3390/app10228098
77. Lin D, Lee CKM, Lau H, Yang Y. Strategic response to industry 4.0: an empirical investigation on the Chinese automotive industry. Ind
Manag Data Syst. 2018;118(3):589-605. doi:10.1108/IMDS-09-2017-0403
78. Paganin G, Simbula S. New technologies in the workplace: can personal and organizational variables affect the employees’ intention to
use a work-stress management app? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(17):9366. doi:10.3390/ijerph18179366
79. Marak ZR, Tiwari A, Tiwari S. Adoption of 3D printing technology: an innovation diffusion theory perspective. Int J Innov.
2019;7(1):87-103. doi:10.5585/iji.v7i1.393
80. Yadav G, Kumar A, Luthra S, Garza-Reyes JA, Kumar V, Batista L. A framework to achieve sustainability in manufacturing organisations
of developing economies using industry 4.0 technologies’ enablers. Comput Ind. 2020;122:103280. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2020.103280
81. Frederico GF, Garza-Reyes JA, Anosike A, Kumar V. Supply chain 4.0: concepts, maturity and research agenda. Supply Chain Manag.
2020;25(2):262-282. doi:10.1108/SCM-09-2018-0339
82. Wichmann RL, Eisenbart B, Gericke K. The direction of industry: a literature review on industry 4.0. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Engineering Design, ICED; 2019:2129-2138. doi:10.1017/dsi.2019.219
83. Ustundag A, Cevikcan E. Industry 4.0: Managing the Digital Transformation. Springer International Publishing; 2018.
84. Laato S, Mäntymäki M, Islam AKMN, Hyrynsalmi S, Birkstedt T. Trends and trajectories in the software industry: implications for the
future of work. Inf Syst Front. 2022;25:929-944. doi:10.1007/s10796-022-10267-4
85. Aagaard A, Presser M, Collins T, Beliatis M, Skou AK, Jakobsen EM. The role of digital maturity assessment in technology interventions
with industrial internet playground. Electronics. 2021;10(10):1134. doi:10.3390/electronics
86. van den Berg J, van der Lingen E. An empirical study of the factors affecting the adoption of mobile enterprise applications. S Afr J Ind
Eng. 2019;30(1):124-146. doi:10.7166/30-1-1992
87. Al-Edenat M. Organizational competencies toward digital transformation at the events of disruptive changes: an operational process
innovation perspective. Compet Rev. 2021;33(4):690-710. doi:10.1108/CR-05-2021-0081
88. Sepasgozar SME, Ghobadi M, Shirowzhan S, Edwards DJ, Delzendeh E. Metrics development and modelling the mixed reality and digital
twin adoption in the context of industry 4.0. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Vol 28. Emerald Group Holdings
Ltd.; 2021:1355-1376. doi:10.1108/ECAM-10-2020-0880
89. Wang IC, Liao CW, Lin KP, Wang CH, Tsai CL. Evaluate the consumer acceptance of AIoT-based unmanned convenience stores based
on perceived risks and technological acceptance models. Math Probl Eng. 2021;2021:4416270. doi:10.1155/2021/4416270
90. Yu TK, Lin ML, Liao YK. Understanding factors influencing information communication technology adoption behavior: the moderators
of information literacy and digital skills. Comput Human Behav. 2017;71:196-208. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.005
91. Kamble S, Gunasekaran A, Arha H. Understanding the Blockchain technology adoption in supply chains-Indian context. Int J Prod Res.
2019;57(7):2009-2033. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1518610
92. Xu M, David JM, Kim SH. The fourth industrial revolution: opportunities and challenges. Int J Financial Res. 2018;9(2):90-95.
doi:10.5430/ijfr.v9n2p90
93. Golant SM. A theoretical model to explain the smart technology adoption behaviors of elder consumers (Elderadopt). J Aging Stud.
2017;42(1):56-73. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2017.07.003
94. van Laar E, van Deursen AJAM, van Dijk JAGM, de Haan J. The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: a systematic
literature review. Comput Human Behav. 2017;72:577-588. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
95. Maroufkhani P, Wan Ismail WK, Ghobakhloo M. Big data analytics adoption model for small and medium enterprises. J Sci Technol
Policy Manag. 2020;11(2):171-201. doi:10.1108/JSTPM-02-2020-0018
96. Sepasgozar SME, Davis S. Digital construction technology and job-site equipment demonstration: modelling relationship strategies for
technology adoption. Buildings. 2019;9(7):158. doi:10.3390/BUILDINGS9070158
97. Ullah F, Sepasgozar SME, Thaheem MJ, Al-Turjman F. Barriers to the digitalisation and innovation of Australian smart real estate: a
managerial perspective on the technology non-adoption. Environ Technol Innov. 2021;22:101527. doi:10.1016/j.eti.2021.101527
98. Bag S, Gupta S, Luo Z. Examining the role of logistics 4.0 enabled dynamic capabilities on firm performance. Int J Logist Manag.
2020;31(3):607-628. doi:10.1108/IJLM-11-2019-0311
99. Masood T, Egger J. Adopting augmented reality in the age of industrial digitalisation. Comput Industry. 2020;115:103112.
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2019.07.002
100. Sahid NZ, Sani MKJA, Noordin SA, Zaini MK, Baba J. Determinants factors of intention to adopt big data analytics in malaysian public
agencies. J Ind Eng Manag. 2021;14(2):269-293. doi:10.3926/jiem.3334
101. Ram J, Afridi NK, Khan KA. Adoption of big data analytics in construction: development of a conceptual model. Built Environ Proj Asset
Manag. 2019;9(4):564-579. doi:10.1108/BEPAM-05-2018-0077
102. Kademeteme E, Twinomurinzi H. The ineffectiveness of technology adoption models in the 4IR era: a case of SMEs in South Africa.
Proceedings of the 2019 Open Innovations Conference; 2019:252-261; IEEE. doi:10.1109/OI.2019.8908220
103. Schniederjans DG, Yalcin MG. Perception of 3D-printing: analysis of manufacturing use and adoption. Rapid Prototyp J.
2018;24(3):510-520. doi:10.1108/RPJ-04-2017-0056
104. Ghobakhloo M, Ching NT. Adoption of digital technologies of smart manufacturing in SMEs. J Ind Inf Integr. 2019;16:100107.
doi:10.1016/j.jii.2019.100107
105. Stewart H, Jürjens J. Data security and consumer trust in FinTech innovation in Germany. Inf Comput Secur. 2018;26(1):109-128.
doi:10.1108/ICS-06-2017-0039
106. Henao-Ramírez AM, López-Zapata E. Analysis of the factors influencing adoption of 3D design digital technologies in Colombian firms.
J Enterp Inf Manag. 2022;35(2):429-454. doi:10.1108/JEIM-10-2020-0416
107. Chowdhury S, Rodriguez-Espindola O, Dey P, Budhwar P. Blockchain technology adoption for managing risks in operations and supply
chain management: evidence from the UK. Ann Oper Res. 2023;327:539-574. doi:10.1007/s10479-021-04487-1
108. Kumar Bhardwaj A, Garg A, Gajpal Y. Determinants of Blockchain technology adoption in supply chains by small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) in India. Math Probl Eng. 2021;2021:5537395. doi:10.1155/2021/5537395
109. Wamba SF, Queiroz MM. Industry 4.0 and the supply chain digitalisation: a blockchain diffusion perspective. Prod Plan Control.
2020;33(2):193-210. doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.1810756
110. Butt R, Siddiqui H, Soomro RA, Asad MM. Integration of industrial revolution 4.0 and IOTs in academia: a state-of-the-art review on the
concept of education 4.0 in Pakistan. Interact Technol Smart Educ. 2020;17(4):337-354. doi:10.1108/ITSE-02-2020-0022
111. Hossain MA, Standing C, Chan C. The development and validation of a two-staged adoption model of RFID technology in livestock
businesses. Inf Technol People. 2017;30(4):785-808. doi:10.1108/ITP-06-2016-0133
112. Queiroz MM, Fosso Wamba S, de Bourmont M, Telles R. Blockchain adoption in operations and supply chain management: empirical
evidence from an emerging economy. Int J Prod Res. 2021;59(20):6087-6103. doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1803511
113. Liang TP, Kohli R, Huang HC, Li ZL. What drives the adoption of the Blockchain technology? A fit-viability perspective. J Manag Inf
Syst. 2021;38(2):314-337. doi:10.1080/07421222.2021.1912915
114. Sharma M, Sehrawat R. Quantifying SWOT analysis for cloud adoption using FAHP-DEMATEL approach: evidence from the manufac-
turing sector. J Enterp Inf Manag. 2020;33(5):1111-1152. doi:10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0276
115. Belletier C, Charkhabi M, de Andrade P, et al. Wearable cognitive assistants in a factory setting: a critical review of a promising way of
enhancing cognitive performance and well-being. Cogn Technol Work. 2021;23(1):103-116. doi:10.1007/s10111-019-00610-2
116. Almaiah MA, Al-Khasawneh A. Investigating the main determinants of mobile cloud computing adoption in university campus. Educ
Inf Technol. 2020;25(4):3087-3107. doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10120-8
117. Kinkel S, Baumgartner M, Cherubini E. Prerequisites for the adoption of AI technologies in manufacturing – evidence from a worldwide
sample of manufacturing companies. Technovation. 2021;110:102375. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102375
118. Junior CH, Oliveira T, Yanaze M. The adoption stages (evaluation, adoption, and Routinisation) of ERP systems with business analytics
functionality in the context of farms. Comput Electron Agric. 2019;156(4):334-348. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2018.11.028
119. Aziz MH, Qamar S, Khasawneh MT, Saha C. Cloud manufacturing: a myth or future of global manufacturing? J Manuf Technol Manag.
2020;31(7):1325-1350. doi:10.1108/JMTM-10-2019-0379
120. Pieters JJ, Kokkinou A, van Kollenburg T. Understanding Blockchain technology adoption by non-experts: an application of the unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Oper Res Forum. 2022;3:1. doi:10.1007/s43069-021-00113-9
121. Singh H, Jain G, Munjal A, Rakesh S. Blockchain technology in corporate governance: disrupting chain reaction or not? Corp Gov.
2020;20(1):67-86. doi:10.1108/CG-07-2018-0261
122. Ali O, Shrestha A, Osmanaj V, Muhammed S. Cloud computing technology adoption: an evaluation of key factors in local governments.
Inf Technol People. 2021;34(2):666-703. doi:10.1108/ITP-03-2019-0119
How to cite this article: Kruger S, Steyn AA. Leveraging technology adoption to navigate the 4IR towards a
future-ready business: A systematic literature review. Engineering Reports. 2023;e12762. doi: 10.1002/eng2.12762
APPENDIX A. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATION ACCESS PER PUBLICATION

COU NT
Country of publication Country of study Country of author

OA Non-OA OA Non-OA OA Non-OA
Country count count Country count count Country count count
United Kingdom 2 32 India 4 7 India 3 8
United States 3 7 Global 1 9 Malaysia 4 4
Switzerland 9 1 Malaysia 3 4 Australia 1 4
Netherlands 1 7 United Kingdom 1 4 United Kingdom 0 4
South Korea 2 0 South Africa 1 3 South Africa 1 3
Malaysia 1 1 Pakistan 2 1 France 2 2
Spain 1 0 Italy 1 2 United States 1 2
South Africa 1 0 Brazil 0 3 Italy 1 2
India 1 0 Australia 1 2 China 1 2
Yemen 1 1 Taiwan 1 1
United States 0 2 Saudi Arabia 0 2
Taiwan 1 1 Nigeria 0 2
China 0 2 Germany 0 2
Vietnam 1 0 Brazil 0 2
Saudi Arabia 0 1 Yemen 0 1
Nigeria 0 1 Vietnam 1 0
Netherlands 1 0 Slovenia 0 1
Kuwait 0 1 Scotland 0 1
Jordan 1 0 Qatar 1 0
Iran 0 1 Portugal 0 1
Greece 1 0 Pakistan 0 1
Germany 0 1 Netherlands 1 0
Denmark 1 0 Jordan 1 0
Columbia 0 1 Iran 0 1
China 0 1 Greece 1 0
Finland 0 1
Denmark 1 0
Columbia 0 1
APPENDIX B. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATION COUNTRY WITH OPEN

ACCESS LEVEL PER CITATION COUNT
APPENDIX C. REGIONAL ATTRIBUTES OF COUNTRY OF STUDY PER SAMPLE SIZE COUNT

OF THE STUDIES AND CITATION COUNT
Country Sample size count Country Citation count
Malaysia 1761 Malaysia 392
India 1650 India 249
Global 1394 Brazil 237
China 795 United Kingdom 232
South Africa 752 China 190
Greece 697 Global 165
Brazil 694 Germany 109
Denmark 500 Nigeria 109
United Kingdom 486 Yemen 102
Kuwait 480 South Africa 99
Australia 425 Italy 64
Italy 408 Australia 48
Vietnam 396 Saudi Arabia 30
Yemen 354 Kuwait 28
Taiwan 338 Pakistan 25
United States 281 Vietnam 22
Netherlands 242 United States 20
Pakistan 213 Iran 17
Saudi Arabia 210 Taiwan 11
Germany 209 Jordan 7
Jordan 187 Colombia 4
Colombia 138 Greece 3
Iran 112 Denmark 0
Nigeria 6 Netherlands 0
APPENDIX D. AU THOR AFFILIATION PER REGION PER SAMPLE SIZE OF STUDY COUNT
AND CITATION COU NT
Citation count Sample size of study count
Malaysia 322 Malaysia 1555
United Kingdom 220 India 1547
Brazil 204 Australia 960
India 198 Germany 864
China 186 South Africa 752
Nigeria 133 Greece 697
Germany 111 France 691
South Africa 99 China 624
Yemen 97 United Kingdom 608
Scotland 90 Denmark 500
Australia 90 Italy 408
Iran 89 Vietnam 396
France 79 Portugal 375
Italy 64 Iran 360
Saudi Arabia 38 Taiwan 338
Portugal 33 Qatar 328
Vietnam 22 Brazil 319
United States 22 United States 297
Finland 20 Netherlands 242
Pakistan 15 Saudi Arabia 235
Taiwan 11 Jordan 187
Jordan 7 Colombia 138
Qatar 5 Slovenia 124
Colombia 4 Pakistan 84
Greece 3 Scotland 33
Slovenia 1 Yemen 26
Netherlands 0 Nigeria 26
Denmark 0 Finland 14
APPENDIX E. AU THOR INSTITUTIONS’ AFFILIATION PER PUBLICATION COUNT,

SAMPLE SIZE OF STUDY COUNT, CITATION COUNT AND ARTICLE
Sample size
Institution Publications References Institution of study count Institution Citation count
Universiti Teknologi 3 8,19,95 University of West 697 Xiamen University 265

Malaysia Attica Malaysia
Xiamen University 2 2,3 Karlsruhe University 655 University of 190
Malaysia of Applied Sciences Cambridge
University of New 2 96,97 Aarhus University 500 Universidade Federal 168
South Wales de Santa Catarina
University of 2 12,98 Universiti Teknologi 480 Shanghai Maritime 156
Johannesburg MARA University
University of 2 69,99 American University 480 Universiti Teknologi 116
Cambridge of the Middle East Malaysia
Universiti Teknologi 2 50,100 University of 460 University of 109
MARA Johannesburg Port-Harcourt
National Institute of 2 31,49 University of 396 Universität 109
Industrial Finance – Marketing Koblenz-Landau
Engineering
University of West 1 6 Multimedia University 396 Robert Gordon 90
Attica University
University of South 1 101 TBS Business School 394 University of 89
Australia Hormozgan
University of South 1 102 Campus de Campolide 375 University of 86
Africa Johannesburg
University of Rhode 1 103 Huazhong University 372 University of Bergamo 60
Island of Science and
Technology
University of Reading 1 73 University of 360 National Institute of 54
Hormozgan Industrial
Engineering
University of Pretoria 1 86 Xiamen University 351 National Institute of 49
Malaysia Industrial
Engineering
University of 1 35 Indian Institute of 340 EDHEC Business 38
Port-Harcourt Technology School
University of 1 78 Community College of 328 Universiti Teknologi 37
Milan-Bicocca Qatar MARA
University of Ljubljana 1 70 School of Business IT 318 TBS Business School 37
and Logistics
University of 1 104 University of 293 Paulista University 36
Hormozgan Cambridge
Universiti Utara 1 30 National Sun Yat-Sen 242 Amity University 30
Malaysia University,
Kaohsiung
(Continues)
Sample size
University of 1 75 National Institute of 290 Campus de Campolide 33

Finance – Marketing Industrial
Engineering
University of 1 74 Coventry University 258 University of New 31
Education South Wales
University of Bergamo 1 27 University of 251 King Faisal University 30
Milan-Bicocca
Universität 1 105 Avans University of 242 American University 28
Koblenz-Landau Applied Sciences of the Middle East
Universidade Federal 1 32 Amity University 223 Landmark University 24
de Santa Catarina
Universidad de 1 106 University of South 222 University of 22
Antioquia Africa Finance – Marketing
Toulouse Business 1 107 Binghamton 218 Indian Institute of 22
School University Technology
Thapar Institute of 1 108 Thapar Institute of 216 Huazhong University 22
Engineering and Engineering and of Science and
Technology Technology Technology
TBS Business School 1 109 King Faisal University 210 Tampere University of 20
Technology
Tampere University of 1 57 Universität 209 University of Reading 18
Technology Koblenz-Landau
Sukkur IBA University 1 110 Al al-Bayt University 187 University of Rhode 17
Island
Shanghai Maritime 1 77 Paulista University 184 School of Business IT 17
University and Logistics
School of Business IT 1 111 EDHEC Business 181 Martin Luther 17
and Logistics School Christian University
Sardar Patel College of 1 26 Universiti Teknologi 180 Sukkur IBA University 15
Engineering Malaysia
Robert Gordon 1 7 Universiti Utara 174 University of South 14
University Malaysia Australia
Politecnico di Torino 1 36 Shanghai Maritime 165 Sardar Patel College of 13
University Engineering
Paulista University 1 112 Indian Institute of 165 Coventry University 12
Management Indore
National Sun Yat-Sen 1 113 Politecnico di Torino 147 University of Pretoria 9
University,
Kaohsiung
National Institute of 1 114 Universidad de 138 Nanjing University 8
Industrial Antioquia
Engineering
Nanjing University 1 67 Universidade Federal 135 King Saud bin 8
de Santa Catarina Abdulaziz
University for
Health Sciences
(Continues)
Sample size
Multimedia University 1 22 BML Munjal 132 Amity School of 8
University Engineering and
Technology
Martin Luther 1 79 University of Ljubljana 124 National Sun Yat-Sen 7
Christian University University,
Kaohsiung
Landmark University 1 28 Toulouse Business 116 Al al-Bayt University 7
School
Laboratoire de 1 115 University of New 107 Community College of 5
Psychologie Sociale South Wales Qatar
et Cognitive
King Saud bin 1 61 University of 96 University of South 4
Abdulaziz Education Africa
University for
Health Sciences
King Faisal University 1 116 Martin Luther 90 University of 4
Christian University Education
Karlsruhe University 1 117 Nanjing University 87 Universidad de 4
of Applied Sciences Antioquia
Indiana University of 1 66 Sukkur IBA University 84 Politecnico di Torino 4
Pennsylvania
Indian Institute of 1 46 University of Pretoria 70 Laboratoire de 4
Management Indore Psychologie Sociale
et Cognitive
Huazhong University 1 11 University of Rhode 63 University of West 3
of Science and Island Attica
Technology
EDHEC Business 1 51 University of Reading 57 Thapar Institute of 3
School Engineering and
Technology
Coventry University 1 25 University of South 55 Binghamton 3
Australia University
Community College of 1 76 Amity School of 43 Karlsruhe University 2
Qatar Engineering and of Applied Sciences
Technology
Campus de Campolide 1 118 Robert Gordon 33 Indiana University of 2
University Pennsylvania
BML Munjal 1 64 National Institute of 32 BML Munjal 2
University Industrial University
Engineering
Binghamton 1 119 King Saud bin 25 University of Ljubljana 1
University Abdulaziz
University for
Health Sciences
Avans University of 1 120 Landmark University 20 Universiti Utara 1
Applied Sciences Malaysia
(Continues)
Sample size
Amity University 1 121 Sardar Patel College of 16 University of 0
Engineering Milan-Bicocca
Amity School of 1 63 Indiana University of 16 Toulouse Business 0
Engineering and Pennsylvania School
Technology
American University 1 122 Tampere University of 14 Multimedia University 0
of the Middle East Technology
Al al-Bayt University 1 62 University of Bergamo 10 Indian Institute of 0
Management Indore
Aarhus University 1 85 University of 6 Avans University of 0
Port-Harcourt Applied Sciences
Indian Institute of 1 46 Laboratoire de 0 Aarhus University 0
Management Indore Psychologie Sociale
et Cognitive
APPENDIX F. SUBJECT AREA TO COUNT OF CITATION, PUBLICATION AND SAMPLE SIZE

OF THE STUDY AREA
Field of study Publication count Sample size of study count Citation count
Agriculture 2 350 66
Business administration 14 1979 307
Computer science 5 1287 162
Construction 2 60 28
Education 5 1359 142
Engineering 4 547 33
Finance 4 1072 181
Health care 1 242 7
Information systems 5 670 72
Manufacturing 13 2142 579
Pharmaceuticals 1 372 22
Psychology 1 0 4
Public administration 2 567 36
Service industry 1 14 20
Supply chain management (SCM) 8 1908 348
Transportation 1 165 156
APPENDIX G. TECHNOLOGY USAGE PER COUNT OF PUBLICATION, CITATION COUNT

AND SAMPLE SIZE STUDY COUNT
Technology Citation count Count of publication Sample size of study count
Additive manufacturing 38 3 291

Artificial intelligence 24 2 995
Big Data 66 4 583
Blockchain 416 10 2149
Cloud computing 249 12 2426
IoT 166 9 1210
Smart technologies of 4IR 1138 28 5052
Spatial computing 66 1 22

Leveraging Technology Adoption To Navigate The 4IR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leveraging Technology Adoption To Navigate The 4IR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leveraging Technology Adoption To Navigate The 4IR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 18 January 2023 Revised: 18 August 2023 Accepted: 22 August 2023

Leveraging technology adoption to navigate the 4IR towards

Sean Kruger1 Adriana A. Steyn2

Engineering Reports. 2023;e12762. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/eng2 1 of 31

3.1 Regional attributes

FIGURE 2 Country of study distribution per publication count. Source: Tableau

FIGURE 3 Country of authors’ affiliation per publication count. Source: Tableau

FIGURE 4 Distribution of articles by year of publication. Source: Tableau

3.2 Distribution by date

3.3 Primary technology adoption models used

3.4 Subject areas identified

3.5 Emerging technologies effectively adopted in the 4IR context

FIGURE 5 Model count to subject area. Source: Tableau

3.6 Comparison of subject area and technology adopted

3.7 Constructs identified that influence 4IR technology adoption

Model application to technology per publication count. Source: Tableau

Technology concentration per subject area. Source: Tableau

Construct Description Hypothesis developed Associated model/s Dimension

Count = 31 Perceived usefulness shares similarities with performance

expectancy (PE) and extrinsic motivation.18

Construct Description Hypothesis developed Associated model/s Dimension

Antecedents Intermediary process Outcome

Dimension Influential construct Weighting

Relative advantage (AKA Hedonic

Facilitating conditions (AKA Consumer

Technological capabilities (TC) (AKA

Top management support (TMS) 7

Social influence (SI) 5

Competitor pressure (AKA Mimic

Regulations and policy (RP) 5

Vendor support (VS) 3

5.1 Future research

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

APPENDIX A. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATION ACCESS PER PUBLICATION

Country of publication Country of study Country of author

APPENDIX B. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATION COUNTRY WITH OPEN

APPENDIX C. REGIONAL ATTRIBUTES OF COUNTRY OF STUDY PER SAMPLE SIZE COUNT

Citation count Sample size of study count

Malaysia 322 Malaysia 1555

United Kingdom 220 India 1547

Brazil 204 Australia 960

India 198 Germany 864

China 186 South Africa 752

Nigeria 133 Greece 697

Germany 111 France 691

South Africa 99 China 624

Yemen 97 United Kingdom 608

Scotland 90 Denmark 500

Australia 90 Italy 408

Iran 89 Vietnam 396

France 79 Portugal 375

Italy 64 Iran 360

Saudi Arabia 38 Taiwan 338

Portugal 33 Qatar 328

Vietnam 22 Brazil 319

United States 22 United States 297

Finland 20 Netherlands 242

Pakistan 15 Saudi Arabia 235