Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

How to assess investments in industry 4.0

technologies? A multiple-criteria framework for
economic, financial, and sociotechnical factors

Rodrigo Pessotto Almeida, Néstor Fabián Ayala, Guilherme Brittes Benitez,

Francisco José Kliemann Neto & Alejandro Germán Frank

To cite this article: Rodrigo Pessotto Almeida, Néstor Fabián Ayala, Guilherme Brittes Benitez,
Francisco José Kliemann Neto & Alejandro Germán Frank (2022): How to assess investments in
industry 4.0 technologies? A multiple-criteria framework for economic, financial, and sociotechnical
factors, Production Planning & Control, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2022.2035445

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2022.2035445

Published online: 14 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2022.2035445

How to assess investments in industry 4.0 technologies? A multiple-criteria

framework for economic, financial, and sociotechnical factors
Rodrigo Pessotto Almeidaa , N
estor Fabi
an Ayalab , Guilherme Brittes Beniteza ,
Francisco Jos

e Kliemann Netoa and Alejandro Germ
an Frankb
a
Production Economics Center (NECOP), Department of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil;
b
Organizational Engineering Group (NEO), Department of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Companies that want to adopt Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technologies may face difficulties evaluating the Received 14 October 2020
return on I4.0 investments. The complexity of implementing such technologies and uncertainties Accepted 17 January 2022
regarding the technological requirements, benefits, and organizational impacts make investment deci-
KEYWORDS
sions challenging in this context. We propose an investment appraisal framework for I4.0 technologies
Industry 4.0; investment
adoption based on a multiple-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach. Using the Innovation assessment; sociotechnical;
Diffusion and Sociotechnical theories, we build a framework with three main stages (knowledge, per- economic; financial
suasion, and decision) to guide practitioners through an analysis of I4.0 investments from three differ-
ent perspectives: Economic, Financial, and Sociotechnical factors. We provide conceptual criteria for
investment appraisal and a methodological approach to combine quantitative and qualitative data for
the comparative assessment. We show an empirical application of this framework to assess ten I4.0
technology projects proposed in a multinational company. The application helps to illustrate the use
of this tool. It brings new practical insights into how to organize I4.0 investment projects into the fol-
lowing categories: strategic or structuring, value-creating, and side investments. We also show the
need to include several qualitative requirements and benefits in the technology evaluation to obtain a
more robust view of Industry 4.0 investment priorities.

1. Introduction aspects (Frank, Dalenogare, and Ayala 2019) since I4.0 is a

The digital transformation leveraged by advanced technolo-
gies has established a new industrial stage, the so-called
fourth Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0 (I4.0) (Schuh et al.
2020; Klingenberg, Borges, and Antunes 2019). This techno-
logical diffusion in manufacturing industries promotes an
environment where data, people, industrial assets, resources,
processes, services, and systems are all connected
(Ghobakhloo 2019). Adopting I4.0 technologies can provide
extensive manufacturing industry-spanning benefits, such as
increasing efficiency, productivity, quality, and flexibility
(Bednar and Welch 2020; Veile et al. 2019).
Its increasing diffusion and promise of considerable bene-
fits (Dalenogare et al. 2018) have led a growing number of
manufacturing firms to deal with the challenge of making
investment decisions within the I4.0 context (Cheng et al.
2018). Due to the complex nature of I4.0 technologies
(Benitez, Ayala, and Frank 2020), many firms face difficulties
in assessing the real benefits of adopting these technologies
(Beier et al. 2020). Investments in I4.0 technologies are asso-
ciated with risks, and thus require a multi–perspective
approach to assess the potential gains from its adoption
(Bednar and Welch 2020). Additionally, decisions on I4.0
technologies adoption must not be reduced to only technical
sociotechnical concept in which technological, social, and
environmental aspects strongly interact (Sony and Naik 2020;
Beier et al. 2020).
Nevertheless, while scholars have focussed on investigat-
ing adoption levels in manufacturing firms (e.g. Frank,
Dalenogare, and Ayala 2019; Veile et al. 2019), building
maturity models for I4.0 implementation (e.g. Lu and Weng
2018; Schuh et al. 2020; Wagire et al. 2021), exploring the
expected benefits from I4.0 technologies (e.g. Dalenogare
et al. 2018; Ghobakhloo 2019) and even testing for its posi-
tive effect on firm profitability (e.g. Lin, Wu, and Song 2019;
Veile et al. 2019), there is a lack of studies addressing the
evaluation of investments in this context (Oesterreich and
Teuteberg 2016; Beier et al. 2020). Extant studies proposing
assessment tools for investments in advanced manufacturing
technologies (e.g. Tan et al. 2006; Evans, Lohse, and
Summers 2013; Bai and Sarkis 2017) or I4.0 technologies (e.g.
Kamble et al. 2020; Dreyer et al. 2020) have limitations such
as being restricted to traditional economic and operational
dimensions, disregarding the integration required between
I4.0 technologies and existing systems, as well as the impact
of these technologies on people and organizational aspects.
Moreover, the literature (Bai et al. 2020; Benitez, Ayala, and
Frank 2020) frequently points out the difficulty of measuring

CONTACT N
estor Fabi
an Ayala ayala@producao.ufrgs.br Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre
90035-190, Brazil
ß 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. P. ALMEIDA ET AL.
return on investments (ROI) and Payback when assessing
Industry 4.0 projects, not providing a clear starting point for
managers in the decision-making process for I4.0 technology
adoption. Therefore, this literature gap opens an avenue for
studies aiming to guide investment appraisal in the I4.0 con-
text, leading us to the following research question: how to
appraise investments in Industry 4.0 technologies in manufac-
turing firms?
As stated, the answer to this question should consider the
multidisciplinary complexity of implementing I4.0 technolo-
gies (Sony and Naik 2019) and the fact that manufacturing
goals achieved by adopting these technologies lie in the
intersection between people, technologies, and innovation
(Marcon et al. 2021; Kamble et al. 2020). Thus, in this study,
we combine two theoretical lenses, the Innovation Diffusion
Theory (IDT) and the Sociotechnical Theory (STS), to propose
an investment-oriented decision-making framework for
Industry 4.0 technologies adoption. From the Innovation
Diffusion Theory perspective, our framework is guided by the
first three stages of the innovation-decision process model
proposed by Rogers (2003): (i) knowledge, (ii) persuasion,
and (iii) decision. These are the stages until the firm decides
whether to adopt or reject an innovation (Rogers 2003).
Then, based on the Sociotechnical Theory (Marcon et al.
2021), we propose a sociotechnical dimension to comple-
ment the traditional financial and economic perspectives,
leading to a mathematical function combining them into an
overall investment integrative index. This integrative index
represents the expected return on investment, which can pri-
oritize and support the decision to adopt or reject potential
I4.0 technology investments. Next, we test the proposed
framework in a manufacturing firm with wide experience in
I4.0 technologies adoption. As a result, we found that
although the economic and financial dimensions predomin-
ate in investment decisions, including the sociotechnical per-
spective can change the investment decision. Our case study
revealed that combining the three perspectives in an overall
index is opportune when managers want to evaluate non-
financial and non-economic aspects for technology adoption.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Current research on industry 4.0
investment assessment
Before the concept of Industry 4.0 appeared, the adoption of
technologies for manufacturing systems had been discussed
within the Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT) litera-
ture (Sambasivarao and Deshmukh 1997; O’Brien and Smith
1993). Given the relevance of these technologies for the com-
petitiveness of companies (Cheng et al. 2018), the issue of
selection and justification of investments in AMTs has been
widely addressed by researchers along time (Ordoobadi 2012;
Zhou et al. 2009; Kakati 1997; Bai and Sarkis 2017; Tan et al.
2006; Sambasivarao and Deshmukh 1997). First, Meridith and
Surksh (1986) proposed classifying the range of techniques to
assess technology investments from economic, analytic, and
strategic perspectives. Besides, the authors indicate the condi-
tions under which it is most appropriate to employ each
technique. Additionally, Sambasivarao and Deshmukh (1997)
presented a decision support system integrating multi-
attribute analysis, economic analysis, and risk evaluation ana-
lysis. Likewise, Tan et al. (2006) presented a decision support
system integrating case-based reasoning and a fuzzy neural
network technique. Additionally, Evans, Lohse, and Summers
(2013) used an experience-based approach to propose a
fuzzy decision tree to justify investments in manufacturing
technologies. Kakati (1997), in turn, presented a method
integrating key external competitive factors as an alternative
to the assessment methodologies that underestimate the
benefits obtained from the adoption of new technologies.
Seeking to make investment decisions in AMT more environ-
mentally conscious, Bai and Sarkis (2017) developed a hybrid
multiple-criteria decision model, integrating neighbourhood
rough set theory and cumulative prospect theory based on
a three-parameter interval grey number.
However, although the literature is extensive, there are
still reports of failures and difficulties in assessing and adopt-
ing advanced technologies (Cheng et al. 2018), which indi-
cates that this remains an open question for researchers and
practitioners (Bai and Sarkis 2017). This issue has recently
become more pressing for manufacturing companies with
the accelerated introduction of new emerging technologies
(Cheng et al. 2018), enabling Industry 4.0 (Pacchini et al.
2019; Schuh et al. 2020). Recent studies (Tabim, Ayala, and
Frank 2021; Agostini and Nosella 2019; Bai et al. 2020;
Felsberger et al. 2020) have identified a gap and need to
develop more complete models to support the assessment
of investments in I4.0 technologies. Answering to this call,
Kamble et al. (2020) identify performance indicators and
introduce a performance measurement system to assess I4.0
technology projects, while Dreyer et al. (2020) propose a
multi-dimensional decision model to integrate classic per-
formance evaluation criteria with specific Industry 4.0 criteria.
Moreover, Tabim, Ayala, and Frank (2021) developed a deci-
sion process for the assessment of vertical integration adop-
tion in the Industry 4.0 context.
However, extant models from both AMT and Industry 4.0
streams have some limitations. First, most models do not
consider the premise that I4.0 technological solutions will
have to be integrated with existing production systems
(Felsberger et al. 2020; Cheng et al. 2018). This integration
requires an approach that will help to assess and optimize
the complex relationship between I4.0 technologies (Tabim,
Ayala, and Frank 2021; Davis et al. 2014; Bednar and Welch
2020). Second, extant models mostly neglect sociotechnical
criteria such as people, organizational structure, and environ-
ment context where the I4.0 technology will be implemented
(Marcon et al. 2021). However, I4.0 solutions are generally
complex (Frank, Dalenogare, and Ayala 2019), and their
impact is not limited to the technical aspects. Thus, human
and organizational factors are very relevant for a successful
implementation of these technologies in manufacturing sys-
tems (Dornelles et al. 2021; Tabim, Ayala, and Frank 2021;
Dalenogare et al. 2018). Therefore, we propose a new mul-
tiple-criteria framework that considers economic, financial,

and sociotechnical factors in assessing I4.0 technology adop-
tion projects.
2.2. Industry 4.0 technologies and the innovation-
decision process
Within the context of the Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT),
innovation can be defined as an idea, practice, or object per-
ceived as new by an organization, such as new technologies
or new uses thereof (Rogers 2003). In this sense, I4.0 can be
understood as a set of emerging innovative and digital tech-
nologies that provide new value for customers and organiza-
tions (Pacchini et al. 2019), creating solutions with the
potential to transform processes, products, and services
(Ghobakhloo 2018). Such innovation is supported by the
integration of established technologies such as sensors and
wireless networks with emerging ones, such as the Industrial
Internet of Things (IIoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), 3 D print-
ing, and big data analytics (Lu and Weng 2018; Klingenberg,
Borges, and Antunes 2019).
Since the concept was coined in 2011, the implementa-
tion of the I4.0 technologies has gained high relevance
(Meindl et al. 2021). However, practitioners have struggled to
decide on which from the many possible applications of I4.0
technologies is the more adequate for them (Dalenogare
et al. 2018; Dalenogare et al. 2019; Frank, Dalenogare, and
Ayala 2019), pointing to the technology adoption decision
process as one of the main challenges for manufacturing
firms (Tabim, Ayala, and Frank 2021; Felsberger et al. 2020;
Bai et al. 2020; Dreyer et al. 2020). To address this challenge,
we adopt the innovation-decision process model proposed
by Rogers (2003) and derived from the IDT. Rogers’ IDT is
well fit for the analysis of technology adoption decisions, as
observed in several articles from the operations management
field (e.g. Simo~es, Soares, and Barros 2020; Wei, Lowry, and
Seedorf 2015), especially those related to information tech-
nology (e.g. Bose and Luo 2011; Alshamaila, Papagiannidis,
and Li 2013). More specifically, the innovation-decision pro-
cess model has been employed by many scholars to shed
light on technology adoption – e.g. green information tech-
nologies (Bose and Luo 2011), smart home technology (SHT)
(Sanguinetti, Karlin, and Ford 2018), and customer relation-
ship management (CRM) technology (Nguyen and Waring
2013) – because it offers a clear guide through the main
stages that should be observed to decide about innovative
technologies.
The innovation-decision process model comprises five
stages. The first three refer to evaluating the adoption or rejec-
tion decision, and the last two refer to post-implementation
analysis. Thus, our study focuses only on the first three stages
– pertaining to investment appraisal – since, to go to the
fourth stage, firms need to have effectively made the imple-
mentation investments. The first stage, named knowledge, cov-
ers the knowledge that firms should have about the desired
technology to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of its
adoption. In the second stage, named persuasion, the organiza-
tion takes a favourable or unfavourable attitude (about
whether or not to invest) towards the evaluated technology.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 3
In the third stage, named decision, the firm decides if it will
adopt or reject the innovative technology. Recently, Tabim,
Ayala, and Frank (2021) proposed to use this model with its
three stages in the Industry 4.0 context to support the adop-
tion of information systems aiming at vertical integration.
Although this study is one of the first in the Industry 4.0
domain that follows such an approach, the authors considered
only the organizational factors in the innovation-decision pro-
cess involved and not the investment appraisal activities neces-
sary for the final adoption.
2.3. Sociotechnical theory for the appraisal of industry
4.0 technologies investment
Companies often base investment decisions on financial or
economic criteria using techniques vastly explored in eco-
nomic literature, such as Net Present Value (NPV), Internal
Rate of Return (IRR), and Payback period (Bai and Sarkis
2017). However, these techniques ignore the impacts on
sociotechnical aspects present in the I4.0 context, which may
jeopardize a manufacturing firm’s investment returns (Cheng
et al. 2018).
The interrelationship between humans, technological ele-
ments, and the work environment in manufacturing systems
can be described as sociotechnical systems. According to
Cherns (1976), Sociotechnical Theory is often used to
describe the complex interplay between social and techno-
logical aspects and the organizational and external environ-
ments. Industry 4.0 solutions tend to be particularly complex
systems as they integrate technologies such as IoT, Cloud,
Big Data, and Artificial Intelligence with their surroundings
(Benitez et al. 2022; Benitez, Ayala, and Frank 2020), having
implications and being impacted by economic, social, tech-
nical, organizational, and environmental aspects (Masood
and Egger 2019; Lu and Weng 2018; Enrique et al. 2018). As
Bednar and Welch (2020) and Sony and Naik (2020) stated,
sociotechnical systems approaches are the best way to evalu-
ate the potential benefits of I4.0 technologies in organiza-
tions. This was also recently demonstrated by Marcon et al.
(2021) through empirical evidence in 241 companies since
those concerned with sociotechnical factors during the
Industry 4.0 journey achieved higher maturity levels in
adopting Industry 4.0 technologies. Furthermore, Tabim,
Ayala, and Frank (2021) considered technology, organiza-
tional, and environmental factors during the selection of
information systems for Industry 4.0, showing the potential
tensions among these factors that need to be evaluated. In
this sense, a sociotechnical lens allows us to look at I4.0
technologies implementation not merely as new equipment
that people must be trained to use, but in all its complexity.
It can also guide the adoption and optimized implementa-
tion of I4.0 technologies to meet an organization’s techno-
logical needs (Sony and Naik 2019; Lu and Weng 2018).
From this perspective, it is possible to note that I4.0
investment decisions need to simultaneously evaluate
aspects such as people training, acceptance of employees,
information security, standardization of industrial protocols,
and norms and regulations (Kagermann, Wahlster, and
4 R. P. ALMEIDA ET AL.
Helbig 2013; Oesterreich and Teuteberg 2016). Aspects like
the extensibility of functionalities related to product or man-
ufacturing processes by introducing technological solutions
should also be evaluated (Agostini and Nosella 2019).
Besides, investments in technologies can bring other benefits
that are harder to be measured. For example, the interoper-
ability and connectivity of machines result in interdepend-
ence in factories and manufacturing processes, increasing
the complexity of assessing the benefits and impacts of
these changes in production systems (Dreyer et al. 2020).
These aspects reveal a difficulty in determining the profitabil-
ity of an investment in the I4.0 context.
Thus, the uncertainty and complexity of investments in
I4.0 technologies is a current problem faced by many manu-
facturing firms and constantly highlighted by scholars (e.g.
Benitez, Ayala, and Frank 2020; Bosman, Hartman, and
Sutherland 2019). A recurring challenge for these firms is
assessing the ROI from technologies in the early stages to
assist decision-making (Bosman, Hartman, and Sutherland
2019; Cheng et al. 2018). In this sense, it is necessary to
adopt methods that jointly approach sociotechnical (Marcon
et al. 2021; Beier et al. 2020), economic and financial aspects
(Frank et al. 2013), as proposed in the next section.
3. Proposed framework
The proposed framework to support investment decisions in
I4.0 technologies was developed combining two theoretical
lenses: while the innovation-decision process model from IDT
was used to structure the framework stages, the
Figure 1. I4.0 technologies investment analysis framework.
Sociotechnical Theory (STS) was adopted to assess the
impact of I4.0 technologies adoption in manufacturing sys-
tems. As shown in Figure 1, our proposed framework is
based on the first three stages of the innovation-decision
process proposed by Rogers (2003): (i) knowledge, (ii) persua-
sion, and (iii) decision. In the first stage (i), the organization’s
strategic objectives and prior conditions are evaluated in
terms of technological innovation. With the understanding of
these aspects, potential technology investments are devel-
oped. In the second stage (ii), the framework assesses the
feasibility and consequences of adopting I4.0 technologies
from the Sociotechnical, Economic and Financial perspec-
tives. In the third stage (iii), the final decision is supported
by determining an integrative index, combining the three
perspectives under analysis, which expresses the potential
ROI of the potential technology investment. These stages
cover information search and processing activities for the
organizations to reduce uncertainties about the advantages
and disadvantages of implementing new I4.0 technology.
The next subsections detail all aspects that must be eval-
uated in each of the three stages in our framework
(Figure 1).
3.1. Knowledge
The knowledge stage refers to the period when a firm is pre-
disposed to study a certain technological innovation, devel-
oping a certain level of understanding about this technology
(Rogers 2003). Thus, at this stage, the framework addresses
aspects related to developing suitable project investments in

I4.0 technologies aligned with the firm’s strategy, maturity,
and potential to bring more competitiveness to its manufac-
turing system. The stage is divided into two steps: (i) analysis
of strategic objectives; and (ii) analysis of prior conditions
and definition of potential technology investments.
3.1.1. Analysis of strategic objectives
Before adopting any technology, firms seeking to start their
journey towards Industry 4.0 need to determine their stra-
tegic objectives (Stentoft et al. 2020; Dalenogare et al. 2018).
Therefore, this step presupposes the existence of a stra-
tegical alignment with technology implementation. In other
words, that the firm has defined a strategic roadmap towards
Industry 4.0 (Lu and Weng 2018; Ghobakhloo 2018). In this
step, the firm also evaluates its current technological devel-
opment stage and final goal (Schuh et al. 2020). Thereby, the
firm can prioritize I4.0 technologies for implementation
(Frank, Dalenogare, and Ayala 2019). Finally, after selecting
the technologies aligned with its strategies, the firm can
address the fulfilment of the conditions required to success-
fully adopt the selected I4.0 technologies (Pacchini
et al. 2019).
3.1.2. Analysis of prior conditions and definition of poten-
tial technology investments
This step addresses aspects related to the degree of organ-
izational readiness for the adoption of I4.0 technologies. For
this step, it is necessary to collect the main technical and
operational information on the solution from the potential
providers. Technical information should provide all the pre-
requisites and details about the technology’s modus oper-
andi (Pacchini et al. 2019). According to Rogers (2003), these
requirements are called prior conditions, which lead the
organization to evaluate the prerequisites for adopting a
technology. As observed by Pacchini et al. (2019), Industry
4.0 technologies are interrelated, and some of them may
need previous technologies as a prerequisite for considering
their implementation. For instance, a company should not
analyse investments in implementing big data without a pre-
vious implementation of an infrastructure for digital systems
(Pacchini et al. 2019).
Nevertheless, if the company is not ready to implement
the desired technology, that does not mean it should give
up on it. It only means that the first the prerequisite technol-
ogy should be assessed and implemented, and only then the
subsequent technology be assessed, or still that both interre-
lated technologies should be jointly assessed. Upon this ana-
lysis, it will be possible to define the potential technology
investment, which may involve a single technology or a set
of technologies in a solution customized to the firm’s needs
(Klingenberg, Borges, and Antunes 2019).
3.2. Persuasion
The persuasion stage is when the organization forms a
favourable or unfavourable attitude towards adopting the
new technology (Rogers 2003). In this sense, as justified in
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 5
section 2, this study employs a sociotechnical approach to
assess the qualitative aspects of adopting I4.0 technologies.
Thus, each potential technology investment is measured
based on three indicators that form an integrative index.
This index provides a multicriteria assessment combining the
sociotechnical (Beier et al. 2020), economic, and financial per-
spectives (Frank et al. 2013). In the next subsections, these
perspectives are presented.
3.2.1. Sociotechnical dimension
Success in adopting new advanced technologies requires a
sociotechnical approach (Marcon et al. 2021; Gillani et al.
2020; Beier et al. 2020), which involves four dimensions:
Social, Technology, Organization, and Environment (Hendrick
and Kleiner 2001). These four dimensions were previously
adopted by Marcon et al. (2021) in the Industry 4.0 context.
The study demonstrated that they all have a significant con-
tribution to achieving a higher adoption level of Industry 4.0
technologies. The Social dimension explores the relationship
between people and technologies, addressing the transfor-
mations caused by technologies and people’s role in the
technology adoption (Kadir, Broberg, and Souza 2019;
Dalenogare et al. 2018). The technology dimension explores
the specific characteristics of the technology under analysis,
addressing aspects that influence adoption, such as, for
instance, complexity, compatibility, and interoperability with
existing systems (Masood and Egger 2019). The organization
dimension addresses the characteristics and conditions pro-
vided by the organizational context in terms of resources,
organizational processes, and structure that can influen-
ce the technology adoption (Masood and Egger 2019).
Finally, the environment dimension expands the analysis to
assess the influence of the external environment, including,
for example, government, regulations, and the market (Yeh
and Chen 2018; Masood and Egger 2019).
To select the factors that should be addressed in each
sociotechnical dimension of the framework, we first per-
formed a systematic literature review (SLR) following the
PRISMA method (Moher et al. 2015). Details about this pro-
cedure are provided in Appendix A. After SLR procedures, 32
articles were studied individually to compile an initial list of
15 sociotechnical factors related to advanced technology
implementation. Then, the factors were submitted to the
evaluation of five academic experts and four industry experts
in two separated workshop sessions (details about the
experts are provided in Appendix B). During these work-
shops, the experts qualitatively discussed the factors. Three
factors were excluded because they were not completely
suitable for the I4.0 context or because they measured simi-
lar sociotechnical aspects. Besides, some factors were
rephrased for clarification and to better fit the I4.0 context.
Thus, a final list of 12 factors was submitted to a second
round of evaluation by the nine experts, this time individu-
ally, with all of them approving the list without modifica-
tions. Table 1 presents the final list composed of 12 factors
deemed suitable for assessing the sociotechnical perspective
and the articles where they are cited.
 6

Table 1. Sociotechnical dimensions and criteria.

References

(Hoyer,
(Davies, (Horv
ath Gunawan, (Kamble, (Kumar, (Masood (M€uller, (Sony
(Contador Coole, and (Ghobakhloo (Herceg and and Gunasekaran, (Kiel Singh, and and (Moktadir Kiel, and (Raj and (Stentoft (Veile (Wagire (Yeh and
et al. Smith and (Ghobakhloo et al. Szab
o Reaiche and et al. Chandel Egger et al. Voigt et al. Naik et al. et al. et al. Chen
Criteria Description 2020) 2017) Ching 2019) 2019) 2020) 2019) 2020) Sharma 2018) 2017) 2018) 2019) 2018) 2018) 2020) 2019) 2020) 2019) 2021) 2018)
Technology Technological The firm’s ability to X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
maturity (T1) intentionally leverage
technologies, channels,
R. P. ALMEIDA ET AL.

and digital skills to

support the transformation
of its processes and the
business as a whole.
Technological Level of complexity for the X X x
complexity implementation and use
(T2) of the proposed
I4.0 technology.
Technological The degree to which the X X X X X X X X X
compatibility proposed I4.0 technology
(T3) is consistent with the
firm’s existing
infrastructure.
Organization Production The level of readiness of the X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
system manufacturing system for
readiness the implementation of the
(O1) proposed I4.0 technology.
Organizational The degree to which the X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
structure (O2) firm’s current structure
supports the
implementation and use
of the proposed
I4.0 technology.
Organizational The degree to which the X X X X X X X X X X X X X
processes organization’s processes
(O3) and procedures support
the proposed
I4.0 technology.
Environment Competitive The degree to which the X X X X X X X X X X X
pressure (E1) firm’s competitive
demands are addressed by
the technology features
Regulatory The degree to which the X X X
compliance proposed I4.0 technology
(E2) is aligned with
regulatory compliance.
Supplier The level of accessibility and X X X X X X X X
conditions training of suppliers of the
(E3) proposed I4.0 technology.
Social Working The degree to which the X X X X X X X X X
conditions proposed I4.0 technology
(S1) supports employees’
working conditions.
People’s The degree of the proposed X X X X X X X X X X X X X
acceptance I4.0 technology potential
of new acceptability (usability).
technologies
(S2)
Workforce skills The degree to which the X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
and proposed I4.0 technology
competences is aligned with employees’
(S3) skills and competences.

As observed in Table 1, the sociotechnical factors have a
fundamental characteristic, i.e. they measure the degree of
readiness of the firm to adopt the analysed technology. As
demonstrated by Gillani et al. (2020), sociotechnical aspects
are antecedents that impact the firm’s implementation of
digital manufacturing technologies. By consequence of cor-
rect technology implementation, the firm obtains better per-
formance indicators that financial and economic results can
measure. Moreover, as Sony and Naik (2020) suggested, for
the successful and sustainable implementation of Industry
4.0, the joint optimization of technical, organizational, social,
and environmental factors is desired.
Thus, to measure the expected impact of sociotechnical
factors on potential technology investments, this study uses
an integer scale from 1 to 5. Thus, desirable (DCi) and
undesirable (UCi) expected consequences for criterion i are
judged by experts and receive a score in this scale according
to their impact. For cases where impacts are nonexistent or
low, the criteria receive a score of 1 or 2, respectively. On
the other hand, the assigned score must be 4 or 5, respect-
ively, if the impacts are judged high or very high. Equations
1 and 2 are used to determine the total desirable conse-
quences (DC’) and total undesirable consequences (UC’),
respectively. The index j refers to the sociotechnical dimen-
sions. Thus, j ¼ 1 (Technology), 2 (Organisation), 3
(Environmental), or 4 (Social). The index i refers to the criteria
within each dimension j and i ¼ 1, 2, or 3. Likewise, wsi is the
weight of criterion i within the sociotechnical dimension j.
On the other hand, Yj is the weight of each sociotechnical
dimension j to determine the value of the Sociotechnical
impact (STSi). To determine the weight of importance for
each dimension and criterion, pairwise comparisons should
be performed following the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
(Saaty 2004).
!
jX
¼ 4 X
i¼3
’
DC ¼ Yj  wsi  DCi (1)
j ¼ 1 i¼1
!
jX
¼ 4 X
i¼3
’
UC ¼ Yj  wsi  UCi (2)
j ¼ 1 i¼1
To determine STSi, which represents the ratio between
the total desirable and undesirable consequences, this study
adopts an adaptation of the analysis used by Zhu, Shah, and
Sarkis (2018). The authors calculate the ratio of benefit and
opportunity for cost and risk valuations. Thus, the STSi value
is calculated from Equation 3.
DC’
STSi ¼ (3)
UC’
This analytical perspective allows for the consideration of
non-monetary aspects, normally difficult to be expressed in a
monetary unit, in the decision-making process, from a socio-
technical perspective. However, as valuation in monetary
terms is an approach traditionally used by organizations, this
study also includes the economic and financial perspectives
(Frank et al. 2013), which are discussed in the follow-
ing subsection.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 7
3.2.2. Economic and financial dimensions
Although some studies address the financial and economic
dimensions as a single dimension (e.g. Chan et al. 2001;
Sambasivarao and Deshmukh 1997), in this study, we follow
others that present these dimensions as complementary (e.g.
Kessler 2013; Copeland, Weston, and Shastri 2004; Lefley
1996). According to this view, while economic evaluation is a
comparative analysis to determine what to invest in, based
on profitability, financial evaluation addresses the needs and
availability of resources to carry out the investment (Kessler
2013; Copeland, Weston, and Shastri 2004; Lefley 1996). In
other words, economic evaluation is based on the opportun-
ity costs, whereas financial evaluation is based on explicit
costs paid by enterprises (Atkinson et al. 2012; Mankiw and
Taylor 2006). For the economic dimension, we use the Net
Present Value (NPV) method to assess the potential technol-
ogy investments (Frank et al. 2013). NPV assesses the differ-
ence between the present cash-flow value for t periods of
the project (FCt) by comparing revenues and expenses along
the t periods and the initial investment required (FC0),
according to Equation 4 (Copeland, Weston, and Shastri
2004). The assessment of these differences requires an inter-
est rate, known as the Minimum Attractive Rate of Return
(MARR), provided by the firm, representing the investors’
expectations (Sambasivarao and Deshmukh 1997). In this
sense, an NPV greater than zero indicates that the project
investment is feasible because it exceeds investors’ expecta-
tions (Copeland, Weston, and Shastri 2004).
X
m
FCt
NPV ¼ þ FC0 (4)
t¼1 ð1 þ MARRÞt
NPV provides a quantitative assessment based on cash
flow that should estimate revenues (desirable) and expenses
(undesirable) (Sambasivarao and Deshmukh 1997). Thus, the
revenues considered in the cash flow must represent the
effects provided by the project investment in manufacturing
systems, such as, for example, productivity, cost, quality,
delivery, and flexibility (Cheng et al. 2018). On the other
hand, expenses must represent all costs related to the acqui-
sition, implementation, operation, and maintenance of the
technological solution (Oesterreich and Teuteberg 2016). For
instance, the cost for employee training (Veile et al. 2019)
and the usage cost of new technology (Yeh and Chen 2018)
are examples of implementation and operation costs,
respectively, which require assessing consequences (desirable
and undesirable) to be expressed in monetary units. As
stated in section 3.2, in this study such information was
obtained from previous initiatives and PoCs from this and
other units abroad, as well as from detailed quotes from
technology suppliers.
For the financial dimension, we adopt the Payback
method to assess the potential technology investments.
While NPV evaluates profitability, payback is a method that
calculates the return per year from project start until the
accumulated returns are equal to the cost of the investment
(Lefley 1996). This analysis provides the time to recover the
investment cost, considering the MARR defined by investors
(Copeland, Weston, and Shastri 2004). Payback is equivalent
8 R. P. ALMEIDA ET AL.

to the number of t periods necessary to make NPV zero Equation 8, where rECOi is the result of the NPV for potential
(Frank et al. 2013). Then, payback is calculated using NPV ¼ technology investment i transformed into a scale from 0 to
0 in Equation 4. The time taken to achieve the payback is 1.
defined as the payback period (PBP) (Lefley 1996). L þ NPVi  cNPV
 NPVh
rECOi ¼ 1  e NPV (8)

3.3. Decision The parameter LNPV represents the maximum monetary

value for the NPV, defined by the firm’s experts. The varia-
The Decision stage is the last in the process of I4.0 technolo- bles cNPV and hNPV are parameters for the S-curve, deter-
gies investment appraisal. At this stage, the firm engages in mined by Equations 9 and 10, respectively. The values of
activities that either adopt or reject the new technology NPVmax, the upper projection for the NPV, and NPVmin, the
(Rogers 2003). In this way, the decision to adopt or reject a lower projection for the NPV, are defined based on the opin-
potential technology investment will be guided by perform- ion of the experts involved in the economic evaluation.
ance in the sociotechnical, economic, and financial dimen-  
ln ð10:9Þ
sions. However, although the three are important, they are ln ln ð10:1Þ
cNPV ¼   (9)
different. Thus, this stage proposes creating an index that ln LLNPV þ NPVmax
NPV þ NPVmin
integrates these three perspectives to assess potential tech-
nology investments (Frank et al. 2013). To that end, the indi- LNPV þ NPVmax
hNPV ¼ 1= (10)
vidual values of the three evaluated dimensions need to be ðln ð1 0:9ÞÞ cNPV

standardized to the same scale to determine an integrative

Finally, the Paybacki result represents the financial per-
investment index that will guide the decision on whether to
spective, expressing the time required to recover the invest-
adopt or reject a potential technology investment.
ment cost in a unit of time, usually years. Thus, it is
necessary to transform the payback into a scale with an
3.3.1. Performance indexes standardization interval from 0 to 1, so that it can be used in the calculation
This step aims to adjust the potential technology investment of the integrative index, according to Equation 11, where
performance indicators, STSi, NPVi, and Paybacki, on a stand- rFINi is the payback value of potential technology investment
ardized scale. The STSi index, obtained from Equation 3, rep- i normalized.
resents the ratio between the desirable and undesirable  cPay
LPay þPaybacki
 hPay
consequences of the potential technology investment, rFINi ¼ e (11)
judged based on sociotechnical criteria. In this sense, STSi
must be adjusted to a scale with a range from 0 to 1 to be The LPay parameter is equal to 0 since the best payback is
used as an input for calculating the integrative index. This the immediate return on invested capital (Frank et al. 2013).
adjustment can be performed by developing an S-curve The parameters cPay and hPay are determined by Equations
bounded by upper and lower levels (Frank et al. 2013), 12 and 13, respectively. While Paybackmax represents the
according to Equation 5, where rSTSi is the result of the STS worst scenario, Paybackmin represents the best scenario, that
for project investment i transformed into a scale from 0 to 1. is, the shortest time to recover the invested capital.
 
The parameter LSTS represents the maximum value for the ln ð0:1Þ
ln ln ð0:9Þ
STSi, defined by the firm’s experts. cPay ¼   (12)
L þ STSi  cSTS ln Payback
Payback
max
 STSh min
rSTSi ¼ 1  e STS (5)
Paybackmin
hPay ¼ (13)
The parameters cSTS and hSTS determine the shape and ð ln ð0:9ÞÞ
1=
cPay

amplitude of the S-curve, represented by Equations 6 and 7,

respectively. The values of STSmax, the upper projection for The transformation of the indicators that represent the
the STS, and STSmin, the lower projection for the STS, are three perspectives allows the firm to proceed to the stage
defined based on the opinions of the experts involved in the where these indicators are integrated into an overall index
sociotechnical assessment. to support the investment decision-making process, devel-
  oped as follows.
ð10:9Þ
ln lnln ð10:1Þ
cSTS ¼   (6)
LSTS þ STSmax
ln LSTS þ STSmin 3.3.2. Integrative investment index
LSTS þ STSmax After standardising the scales of the indicators, this step
hSTS ¼ 1= (7) involves determining an overall index. We adopted an aggre-
ð ln ð1  0:9ÞÞ cSTS
gation function known as the ordered weighted aggregation
On the other hand, the result of NPVi represents the eco- (OWA). The OWA is a useful aggregation technique and
nomic perspective, expressing the investment profitability in widely used for multicriteria aggregation that determines a
monetary terms. Thus, it is necessary to transform this result decision-making process (Jin, Mesiar, and Yager 2019). In this
to a scale with an interval from 0 to 1 to be used as an input sense, to aggregate the three indicators, we adapt the
in calculating the integrative index. This transformation was method proposed by Merigo
and Casanovas (2011), called
also defined by the S-curve (Frank et al. 2013), according to induced Euclidean ordered weighted averaging distance

(IEOWAD). This method is an extension of OWA, which uses
inducing variables to assign different weights to the criteria
in constructing the overall index. IEOWAD allows the deci-
sion-making to take into consideration more complex reor-
dering processes that can describe the decision problem in a
complete way (Merigo
and Casanovas 2011). Equation 14
was used to determine the tridimensional overall index,
called the integrative investment index (IIIi), where IIIi repre-
sents the integrative investment index for the potential tech-
nology investment i.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
IIIi ¼ 3  wSTS  rSTSi 2 þ wECO  rECOi 2 þ wFIN  rFINi 2
(14)
The parameters rSTSi, rECOi, and rFINi represent the normal-
ized value of the sociotechnical, economic, and financial per-
spectives, respectively. The parameters wSTS, wECO, and wFIN
represent the weight of rSTSi, rECOi, and rFINi, respectively, to
determine the integrative index. These weights receive a
value from 0 to 1, where the sum of these weights must be
equal to 1.
The IIIi index expresses the expected performance of the
potential technology investment, simultaneously combining
the three perspectives under analysis. In addition to the mul-
ticriteria analysis, the IIIi index provides simplified and object-
ive guidance to support decision-making in selecting which
potential technology investments the firm should make first.
Additionally, the main advantage of adopting distance meas-
ures (OWA) in decision-making is to compare the potential
technology investment with an ideal result (Merigo
and
Casanovas 2011), which represents the result required by the
firm. Thus, the best performance does not mean that the
potential technology investment presents the best result in
all dimensions, but the best balance between the three eval-
uated perspectives (Frank et al. 2013).
4. Demonstration of the framework application
The proposed framework was applied in a company to dem-
onstrate its usage in practice, allowing also to test and valid-
ate it in a real case. The investigation of specific cases is a
highly consolidated approach in operations management lit-
erature to analyse and assess the adoption of Industry 4.0
technologies (see Davies et al. 2020; Strandhagen et al. 2020;
Agrifoglio et al. 2017). The demonstration is divided in two
parts. First, the methodological procedures to select the case
and collect the data is described. Second, the results of the
application are described.
4.1. Methodological procedures for the application
4.1.1. Case selection
The firm was selected based on specific criteria to investigate
our framework application (Voss, Tsikriktsis, and Frohlich
2002). First, the firm should have already made investments
in projects involving the adoption of advanced technologies.
Second, the firm must have a formal investment appraisal
process, considering, at least, the traditional economic and
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 9
financial aspects. Third, the firm should have a defined strat-
egy for its digital transformation or Industry 4.0 journey
towards smart manufacturing (Lu and Weng 2018).
Following these criteria, a multinational machinery and
equipment manufacturer for the agricultural industry was
selected, hereinafter named AGRI. Globally, AGRI is one of
the most important manufacturing firms in its sector. AGRI
owns more than 50 factories around the world, and most of
them are running I4.0 initiatives. The results of these initia-
tives and proof of concepts (PoCs) are shared with all the
factories through an internal advanced manufacturing forum
formed by specialists representing each branch. In Brazil, the
manufacturing plants of AGRI are known as some of
the most mature in the implementation of Industry 4.0 in
the whole country. Many Industry 4.0 concepts and technolo-
gies have already been tested as proof of concept or imple-
mented in the Brazilian factories, including smart predictive
maintenance, smart logistics, smart connected tools and
equipment, vertical integration, autonomous guided vehicles,
additive manufacturing, exoskeletons, smart glasses, collab-
orative robots, augmented reality, among others. This firm
has a formal strategy towards Industry 4.0, with clear I4.0
objectives defined until 2023. Particularly, the industrial unit
where the case study was conducted is currently considered
to be at the fourth stage of Acatech’s maturity index (Schuh
et al. 2020), i.e. transparency. With some initiatives involving
predictive analytics already running, the firm is still in the
process of understanding the full potential of the data being
collected across the factory to be able to use it for root
cause analysis. According to its Industry 4.0 strategy, AGRI
plans to reach the last stage of Acatech’s maturity index
(adaptability) in this industrial unit by 2023.
In the first contact with AGRI experts, they reported diffi-
culties justifying the investments in I4.0 technologies
employing the traditional corporate investment appraisal
process, based on economic and financial criteria only. Thus,
AGRI demonstrated much interest in being the object of this
study and providing all necessary data, which made the
interactions between researchers and experts productive
throughout the framework testing and validation steps. The
framework was used to appraise ten investment projects in
I4.0 technologies proposed by AGRI (Table 2).
4.1.2. Data collection
We used different sources of information to increase the reli-
ability of our analysis (Yin 2009). We used a data triangula-
tion approach which combines different data sources to
understand the framework application (Voss, Tsikriktsis, and
Frohlich 2002; Yin 2009). The first sources were interviews
with experts from AGRI. To enhance the reliability of data,
five experts from AGRI actively participated in testing the
framework. Three of them are from the advanced manufac-
turing area, responsible for implementing technologies on
the shopfloor. The fourth expert is an IT Manager responsible
for integrating new operations and information technologies
with the current IT systems. The fifth expert is an
Engineering Manager responsible for designing and rolling
out new products in the production line (details about the
10 R. P. ALMEIDA ET AL.

Table 2. Potential technology investments.

Project name Technology Goal
(P1) Smart AGVs – MIR Autonomous vehicles, Smart sensors, RFID This project proposes the use of smart AGVs to deliver part
kits to assembly lines.
(P2) Industrial Cloud Cloud, Industrial cloud, Big Data Analytics, This project is related to the first wave of the Industrial
Cybersecurity Cloud Project and covers the development of an
infrastructure for data gathering and dashboard creation
for assets evaluation.
(P3) Implementation of Wearables This project aims to implement exoskeletons to improve
exoskeletons results and benefits regarding ergonomics and efficiency
in manufacturing.
(P4) Smart Devices – Augmented reality (AR) This project aims to implement the Google Glass
Google Glass technology in the quality inspection processes and for
Data Gathering.
(P5) Robotics Robotics Process Automation (RPA) This project aims to apply RPA to reduce manual workload
Process Automation and improve accuracy and controls in
administrative processes.
(P6) Automated Actuators, Smart sensors, Robotics, Standards This project aims to automate the welding process to save
welding process and Protocols costs and increase capacity.
(P7) Machining Centre Actuators, Smart sensors, Flexible Manufacturing This project aims to implement a new flexible cell to
– Integration Systems (FMS), Machine to Machine, Standards increase the machining capacity and allow mass
and Protocols, Human-Machine Interface customization and modularization in the
production line.
(P8) Machining Centre Actuators, Smart Sensors, Human-Machine This project aims to integrate machine to machine in an
– Migration Interface, Machine to Machine, Standards existing machining line to guarantee interoperability
and Protocols and transparency among the processes.
(P9) Team Centre - Simulation, Computer-aided design (CAD), This project aims to implement an integrated solution to
PLM solution Computer-aided engineering (CAE), ERP, Big manage information (data, process, systems and people)
Data, Cloud, Cybersecurity throughout the entire product life cycle (PLM solution).
(P10) Intelligent Manufacturing execution system (MES), ERP, Cloud, This project aims to implement an integrated solution
manufacturing Big Data Analytics, IoT, Cybersecurity, based on MES to promote intelligence in the decision-
processes Smart sensors making process in manufacturing.

experts are provided in Appendix C). Besides these experts I4.0 strategy were studied. The whole data collection process
who directly interacted with the researchers, other areas was conducted from November 2019 to February 2020.
were consulted by the experts during framework testing for
supplementary information, including supply chain, financial,
4.1.3. Data analysis
and production, as well as technology suppliers and experts
As a first step for data analysis, the individual recorded inter-
from other factories around the world. The discussions and
views were literally transcribed by a research assistant to
analysis of the investment were conducted in three focus
facilitate analysis. For the focus groups, the researchers lis-
groups sessions with the experts. Three to four hours were
tened to the recordings several times to improve the notes
spent in each session. Sessions happened in three different
taken during the events. Then, the researchers analysed the
weeks to give the experts time to collect the necessary infor-
data collected from individuals and focus groups to extract
mation, which sometimes had to be requested from other
the main insights from participants’ feedback. Several meet-
units. Also, a final meeting was help to present to the
ings were held between the three researchers to consolidate
experts the results of the investment appraisal. During the
the findings from interviews and analysed documents.
framework application, the experts also collected inputs from
Additional documents or information were required from
the board of directors, especially regarding the strategic
AGRI experts when necessary. Also, since the framework
decisions that should be considered.
application and testing process was gradual, it was possible
All interviews and focus groups were recorded using an
to clarify any doubts or divergences between the researchers
audio recorder, while the researchers wrote notes about their between one meeting and the next. The final results of the
impressions and comments from participants. Notes were framework were presented to AGRI’s global director for oper-
taken by two researchers that are authors of this paper and ations management and to the board of directors of AGRI’s
by one research assistant. This approach was followed by a Brazilian division, where the framework was applied.
confrontation of each researcher’s impressions about the
interview, leading to a better and broader view of the case
while reducing observers’ bias (Yin 2009). 4.2. Application of the framework
Additionally, we analysed documents from previous
The framework application at AGRI is described following
investments, such as electronic sheets with costs and returns,
each of the stages proposed from the innovation-
texts with qualitative justification for the investments, tech-
decision process.
nical sheets, and suppliers’ quotes. We also analysed reports
from past initiatives and proof of concepts (PoCs) of I4.0
technology from this unit and other units abroad. The results 4.2.1. Knowledge stage
of these previous initiatives were essential to our economic At the first stage, AGRI’s experts selected ten potential tech-
and financial analyses. Plus, internal documents with AGRI’s nology investments (Table 2) to test our framework. The
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 11

main selection criterion was that the project should involve
the implementation of an Industry 4.0 technology. As part
of the first step, i.e. analysis of strategic objectives, we
required the experts to explain AGRI’s strategy towards
Industry 4.0. The analysed business unit has clear objectives
on what they call a smart factory roadmap, comprising the
following steps, one for each year: (2019) Visibility, with the
objective of collecting current state information in real-time;
(2020) Monitoring, with the objective of monitoring and ana-
lysing gathered data; (2021) Control, with the objective of
controlling the processes based on data; (2022) Optimization,
with the objective of implementing data-driven changes and
improving processes reviewing the standards; and (2023)
Autonomy, with the objective of having processes that moni-
tor, control and optimize themselves.
With this strategy in hand, the five experts analysed and
discussed the ten potential technology investments. The
experts reached consensus on nine potential technology
investments aligned to AGRI’s smart factory roadmap.
However, a deeper discussion was necessary for the project
Exoskeleton (P3). While it is a cutting-edge technology, it
was unclear how it would help achieve the Industry 4.0
declared objectives. After some discussion, AGRI’s experts
decided to maintain the project because it would help not
only productivity but also employees’ working conditions, a
goal that is also pursued by the company with the imple-
mentation of Industry 4.0. Thus, the ten potential technology
investments passed step 1.
The second step analysed previous conditions required for
the adequate adoption of each investment. First, the experts
collected technical information from the technologies. The
information came from two main sources: (i) technology pro-
viders and (ii) previous PoCs executed by units worldwide.
With this understanding, the experts judged AGRI’s prior con-
ditions to support the new technologies adoption. This ana-
lysis led to the rejection of one of the potential technology
investments: P10. Although important for the firm strategy,
this solution required a prior advanced infrastructure to share
and store data in the cloud, still unavailable at AGRI. In some
cases, the analysis of the prior conditions also revealed a
need to expand the scope of the potential technology invest-
ment to cover all requirements of the technological solution.
Once the potential technology investments were defined,
the information describing each of them was organized in an
electronic spreadsheet form. In addition to the technical
description, a field was added to justify and highlight the
alignment of the potential technology investment with
AGRI’s I4.0 strategy to present the analysis of prior conditions
and any actions or guidelines needed to fulfil it. Finally, other
fields were added to present the assessment of the socio-
technical, economic, and financial aspects to be discussed in
the next subsections.
4.2.2. Persuasion stage
This section presents the results obtained by the analysis of
potential technology investments regarding the NPV,
Payback, and Sociotechnical Impact (STSi) indicators. The
NPV and Payback indicators have long been used by AGRI.
However, although considered relevant by the experts, the
sociotechnical aspects had never been formally addressed.
The evaluation of the sociotechnical perspective initially
required setting some parameters. First, the selected criteria
were validated with experts, which led to the final list in
Table 3. The second step involved determining the weights
of each sociotechnical dimension (Yj), as well the weights for
the criteria in each dimension (wsi). Table 3 presents these
weights, obtained from paired comparisons carried out by
AGRI’s experts, following the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) proposed by Saaty (2004). In the following step, AGRI’s
experts judged the potential technology investments in
terms of desirable (DCi) and undesirable (UCi) consequences,
using a scale of 1 to 5 for each of the criteria. The sum of
the product of the weights (Yj) and (wsi) with the respective
score of the desired consequences (DCi) resulted in the total
desirable consequences (DC’). Likewise, the sum of the prod-
uct of the weights (Yj) and (wsi) with the respective score of
undesirable consequences (UCi) resulted in the total undesir-
able consequences (UC’). Table 3 shows the results obtained
for each potential technology investment, and Appendix D
shows the worksheet used to assess sociotechnical criteria.
Finally, the results for the ratio (Equation 3) between the
total desirable and undesirable consequences (STSi) are pre-
sented in Table 4.
The NPV value assessed the economic perspective. The
NPV values were divided by the total investment value to
address the differences in monetary amount between poten-
tial technology investments. This ratio is known as the
Profitability index, which measures the ratio between the

Table 3. Sociotechnical assessment.

Criteria Yj wsi DC1 UC1 DC2 UC2 DC3 UC3 DC4 UC4 DC5 UC5 DC6 UC6 DC7 UC7 DC8 UC8 DC9 UC9
T1 0.21 0.44 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 5 1
T2 0.21 0.25 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 4 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3
T3 0.21 0.31 3 1 4 1 3 1 5 3 4 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 4 3
O1 0.32 0.40 3 1 4 1 2 2 4 1 2 2 4 1 2 2 1 2 5 2
O2 0.32 0.23 4 1 4 3 2 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 1 1 4 3
O3 0.32 0.37 4 2 4 2 5 1 3 3 4 1 4 2 2 2 3 1 4 2
E1 0.25 0.29 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 1
E2 0.25 0.48 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
E3 0.25 0.23 1 1 2 3 3 1 5 1 5 3 4 2 5 4 4 3 2 2
S1 0.22 0.53 3 1 4 1 5 1 1 3 4 3 5 1 2 1 3 1 4 1
S2 0.22 0.27 1 3 5 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 1
S3 0.22 0.20 1 2 4 2 2 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 2
DC’ 1 UC’ 1 DC’ 2 UC’ 2 DC’ 3 UC’ 3 DC’ 4 UC’ 4 DC’ 5 UC’ 5 DC’ 6 UC’ 6 DC’ 7 UC’ 7 DC’ 8 UC’ 8 DC’ 9 UC’ 9
2.62 1.45 3.21 1.48 3.19 1.24 3.22 1.84 3.30 1.56 3.19 1.70 2.67 1.52 2.31 1.24 3.53 1.73
12 R. P. ALMEIDA ET AL.

NPV and the total investment (Copeland, Weston, and Shastri
2004). Finally, the financial perspective was assessed based on
the Payback.
The results in Table 4 show that technology investment
P3 presents the best performance for the sociotechnical indi-
cator, STS3 ¼ 2.6. This means that technology investment P3
is expected to provide desirable consequences at a rate of
2.6 times the undesirable consequences when considering
the sociotechnical criteria. On the other hand, technology
investment P8 presents the best result for the economic indi-
cator, NPV8 ¼ 68.2%. This indicates that the NPV of technol-
ogy investment P8 corresponds to 68.2% of the total
investment value. Likewise, technology investment P8 also
shows the best performance for the financial indicator,
Payback8 ¼ 2.1 years. So, it is possible to observe different
results comparing sociotechnical against financial and eco-
nomic criteria.
lower levels defining the S-curve were defined. AGRI invest-
ments with a Payback  2.5 years are considered acceptable.
For values with Payback > 2.5 years, investment is restricted.
Therefore, the high-performance level for Payback was
Paybackmin ¼ 2.5 years (score 0.9), while the low-performance
level adopted was Paybackmax ¼ 6 years (score 0.1).
Parameter L was defined for the ideal condition that
could be reached in each indicator (e.g. for Payback, we
adopted LPay ¼ 0, representing the immediate return on
investment). Table 5 presents the parameters adopted for
each indicator by the company’s experts, and the values of
the parameters c and h of each S-curve (according to
Equations 5 to 13).
Figure 2 shows the resulting S-curve for each evaluation
dimension under analysis. From these curves, the following
standardized scores were obtained: sociotechnical (rSTS), eco-
nomic (rECO), and financial (rFIN).

4.2.3. Decision stage Integrative investment index

This stage seeks to support the choice between adopting or This step initially required the definition of the weights for
rejecting a particular technology investment through the each dimension: sociotechnical (wSTS), economic (wECO), and
integrative investment index (IIIi). financial (wFIN), for the composition of the integrative invest-
ment index IIIi, according to Equation 14. However, during
discussions with the experts, three categories of investment
Standardization of performance indexes
were defined: (i) Strategic or structuring investment (SSI), i.e.
The indicators to be integrated were standardized to a scale
investments that aim to meet strategic demands, or that
ranging from 0 to 1 using an S-curve transformation
enable the execution of future I4.0 projects; (ii) Value-creating
(Frank et al. 2016; Frank et al. 2013). First, the upper and
investment (VCI), i.e. investments that promote, for example,
optimization, predictability, and adaptability of operations,
Table 4. STSi, NPVi, and Paybacki results.
and with perceptible and quantifiable benefits; and (iii) Side
Project STSi NPVi (NPV/Inv.) Paybacki
investment (SI), i.e. investments which are not directly aligned
P1 1.80 12.21% 3.13
P2 2.17 8.89% 4.60 with the firm’s I4.0 main goal but have the potential of gen-
P3 2.57 7.00% 4.30 erating rapid economic gains for the organization.
P4 1.75 8.89% 3.90
P5 2.11 11.35% 3.80
Figure 3 presents the three categories of investment and
P6 1.87 46.89% 2.50 the corresponding weights (wSTS, wECO, wFIN) defined by
P7 1.75 –2.24% 3.67 AGRI’s experts through paired comparisons, following the
P8 1.86 68.18% 2.10
P9 2.04 –4.78% 4.50 AHP method described in Section 3.2.2 (Saaty 2004). As
shown in this figure, in strategic or structuring investments,

Table 5. Parameters of the S-curve.

Parameter Sociotechnical Economic Financial
High-performance level (score 0.9) STSmax 3.00 NPVmax 70.0% Paybackmin 2.50
Low-performance level (score 0.1) STSmin 0.30 NPVmin –15.0% Paybackmax 6.00
Parameter L LSTS 5.00 LNPV 90.0% LPay 0.00
Parameter c cSTS 7.49 cNPV 4.07 cPay 3.52
Parameter h hSTS 7.16 hNPV 1.30 hPay 4.74

Figure 2. Sociotechnical, economic and financial scores.

 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 13

the weight of the sociotechnical perspective is greater
because the return in the financial and economic perspec-
tives is not clear yet. Still, these investments are essential for
building the foundations of a consistent I4.0 path. An
example of this type of project is AGRI’s investment in an
Industrial Cloud to collect data for every equipment across
the shopfloor. The side investment category has higher
weights in the economic and financial perspectives to justify
executing projects that are not part of the firm’s core I4.0
strategy. For instance, while developing the RPA project (P5),
a supplier demonstrated to AGRI that automating the weld-
ing process (P6) would reduce the need for a second turn.
This project was not originally planned but was executed
because of the immediate savings and short payback time.
Figure 3. Categories of investments and weights.
Figure 4. Scores of the P8 technology investment.
Finally, it was possible to determine IIIi. Table 6 presents
the result of IIIi and the ranking of investment prioritization
proposed by the index.
To illustrate the III index composition, Figure 4 presents a
graphical representation of the index for technology invest-
ment P8. This investment presented the best scores for the
economic and financial perspectives, combined with average
scores for the sociotechnical perspective.
By examining Table 6, it is possible to observe that the
potential technology investments ranked in the top three
positions are projects classified in the Value-creating invest-
ment (VCI) and Side investment (SI) categories, in which the
indexes for economic and financial perspectives were high.
On the other hand, the 4th technology investment, P3, has
low scores for the economic and financial perspectives but
presents the best score for the sociotechnical perspective
and was classified as a strategic or structuring investment
(SSI). Thus, we can observe the impact of appropriate incorp-
oration of sociotechnical aspects into the investment ana-
lysis, as proposed in our framework. For instance,
considering only financial and economic aspects, project P3
would be only in the 7th position and P2, now ranked 7th,
would be only in the last position. AGRI’s experts unani-
mously agreed that the rank considering the three perspec-
tives reflects the firm’s strategical needs much more closely
and that the proposed framework avoids ambiguous assess-
ment of qualitative factors. This was also validated by the
global director for operations management and to the board
of directors of AGRI’s Brazilian division to whom the frame-
work and the results were presented for validation.
The experts defined the cut-off decision point, i.e. the
minimum value of the integrative investment index (IIIi), to
accept an investment. Based on a reanalysis of ten projects
that the firm had rejected in the past and on a discussion
about the worst scenario that would be acceptable by the
firm for each perspective (i.e. financial, economic, and socio-
technical), the experts arrived at the following values: for SSI
projects, III 0.81; for VCI projects, III 0.76; and for SI proj-
ects, III 0.70. Thus, all potential technology investments in
Table 6 were considered feasible projects. Finally, Table 6
also presents the ranking resulting from the traditional AGRI
approach, based on Payback. The first three projects
remained the same, as these are projects with high indexes
for the economic and financial dimensions, mainly prioritized
by AGRI when choosing between projects. Also, the results
showed that these projects are in the VCI and SI categories,
in which both dimensions have significant representation for
AGRI, especially the financial one. The main changes are

Table 6. Potential technology investments ranking.

Project name Category wSTS wECO wFIN STS rSTS ECO rECO FIN rFIN III Model Rank AGRI rank
(P8) Machining Centre - Migration VCI 0.26 0.24 0.50 0.52 0.89 0.94 1.46 1st 1st
(P6) Automated welding process SI 0.11 0.29 0.60 0.52 0.70 0.90 1.41 2nd 2nd
(P1) Smart AGVs - MIR VCI 0.26 0.24 0.50 0.50 0.31 0.79 1.10 3rd 3rd
(P3) Exoskeletons implementation SSI 0.44 0.16 0.40 0.78 0.26 0.49 1.06 4th 7th
(P5) Robotics Process Automation VCI 0.26 0.24 0.50 0.61 0.30 0.63 0.98 5th 5th
(P7) Machining Centre - Integration VCI 0.26 0.24 0.50 0.48 0.18 0.67 0.93 6th 4th
(P2) Industrial Cloud SSI 0.44 0.16 0.40 0.64 0.28 0.41 0.88 7th 9th
(P4) Smart Devices - Google Glass SSI 0.44 0.16 0.40 0.47 0.28 0.60 0.88 8th 6th
(P9) Team Centre - PLM solution SSI 0.44 0.16 0.40 0.59 0.16 0.43 0.83 9th 8th
14 R. P. ALMEIDA ET AL.
observed in the P3 and P2 projects. Although these projects
have low scores for the financial and economic dimensions,
their good scores in the sociotechnical dimension make
them more attractive investments than other projects with
higher economic and financial scores. Therefore, such results
allow us to compare between the previous approach
employed by the company, which was only based on the
financial criteria shown in Table 4, and the new one in which
economic and sociotechnical criteria were also integrated,
demonstrating a sensibility of the ranking to change prior-
ities and to justify better qualitative aspects of the invest-
ments. In this sense, the experts used these outputs to
discuss these investments with the board and choose not
only those with high payback but also those that contribute
with subjective factors of the factory. The framework pro-
vided them with an objective base to justify qualitative con-
tributions of the I4.0 investments.
5. Discussion and conclusions
I4.0 investments create challenges beyond technical and
quantitative aspects (Bosman, Hartman, and Sutherland
2019). Subjective qualitative aspects surrounding the adop-
tion of I4.0 technologies make investment decisions complex,
requiring efficient decision-making methods (Tabim, Ayala,
and Frank 2021; Bai et al. 2020; Dreyer et al. 2020; Bai and
Sarkis 2017). We provide a clear step-by-step investment
decision-making process that can guide practitioners in
determining the return on investment of technologies in the
I4.0 context. We also provide a list of criteria for evaluation
and guidelines and examples of how practitioners can priori-
tize between potential technology investments, justify invest-
ments, and select the best options.
The application of our proposed framework in an empir-
ical study provided important findings. First, we confirmed
the relevance of incorporating the sociotechnical perspective
into the decision-making process. This perspective can be
considered a driver for implementing I4.0 technologies since
it includes elements often neglected by traditional
approaches. A decision to invest in I4.0 technologies guided
only by economic and financial criteria can be risky, as it
only provides a partial view of the expected, desirable, or
undesirable consequences. Our empirical study exposed the
need to separate the analysis of investments into three cate-
gories to better reflect the phases a firm will go through in
its path towards I4.0, i.e. Strategic or structuring investment,
Value-creating investment, and Side investment. Since most
I4.0 technologies are not stand-alone (Benitez, Ayala, and
Frank 2020), some investments with low economic and finan-
cial returns should be made to create the foundations for
those that will provide this type of return.
Several authors have studied the appraisal of technology
investments in the manufacturing industry context (e.g. Bai
and Sarkis 2017; Frank et al. 2013; Jiao, Du, and Jiao 2007).
However, the I4.0 context is new, and many reasons make
this context different from the previous industrial revolution
stages (Benitez, Ayala, and Frank 2020; Frank, Dalenogare,
and Ayala 2019). Industry 4.0 implies complex interactions
between technology and the social, organizational, and
environmental dimensions (Oesterreich and Teuteberg 2016).
Therefore, Beier et al. (2020) and Dalenogare et al. (2018)
observed that successful adoption of I4.0 technologies
requires a wider and systemic perspective of analysis. Based
on a deep exploration of the I4.0 literature and of the
Innovation Diffusion and Sociotechnical theories, we provide
a systemic view to measure technological complexity, exter-
nal environment, organizational work, and social elements in
investment decisions. Consequently, the proposed integrative
index provides flexibility to evaluate complex I4.0 projects.
5.1. Theoretical contribution and implications
This paper provides two main contributions to the literature
gaps. One gap is that current models do not consider the
integration of I4.0 technological solutions with existing pro-
duction systems. In this sense, this study proposes an
approach that helps to assess and optimize the complex
relationship between I4.0 technologies and the current pro-
duction system requirements. Moreover, this study also con-
tributes to a second gap: most of the existing models only
consider technical criteria. As a contribution, the proposed
model proposes evaluating sociotechnical factors, including
people, organizational structure, and environment context.
Such factors have been proven relevant in the Industry 4.0
implementation (Marcon et al. 2021; Tabim, Ayala, and Frank
2021), but prior studies only analysed correlations and quali-
tative benefits, while investment methods and models did
not consider such an integrative approach in the Industry
4.0 domain.
The framework can be compared with prior studies in
the literature such as Bai et al. (2020), Dreyer et al. (2020),
Felsberger et al. (2020), Bai and Sarkis (2017), and Frank
et al. (2013), which propose models for the appraisal of
technology investments. However, the main difference in
our framework is the addition of a sociotechnical perspec-
tive to guide the investment decision. The use of a socio-
technical perspective in Industry 4.0 has been proven to be
an important success factor when Industry 4.0 technologies
are adopted (Marcon et al. 2021). Following such findings,
our framework adopts this view by considering essential
elements for the correct selection of Industry 4.0 invest-
ments, including technological complexity, external environ-
ment, organizational work, and social aspects. In addition,
the framework provides a procedure to measure the effect
of these elements, improving the reliability of investment
decisions (Brynjolfsson and Hitt 1996). Therefore, the study
contributes by determining an integrative index through
this framework. This index combines the traditional invest-
ment appraisal – involving economic and financial aspects
– with the sociotechnical perspective. This approach implies
greater flexibility in decision-making, which allows to assess
highly complex projects related to the adoption of I4.0
technologies. As suggested by Cheng et al. (2018) and
Frank, Dalenogare, and Ayala (2019), maturity in I4.0 tech-
nologies is obtained by the progressive adoption of
technologies.

Based on the ordered weighted average (OWA) aggrega-
tion function adopted to determine the integrative index,
our framework can avoid the difficulty of comparing poten-
tial technology investments in the I4.0 context. According to
Bai and Sarkis (2017), an investment decision is complex
because different technologies may not be directly
comparable. Furthermore, at this time, investments in I4.0
technologies mostly involve technological solutions unknown
to manufacturing firms (Pacchini et al. 2019), often with no
base for comparison. In this context, our framework is useful
because it does not require comparisons between potential
technology investments, but rather compares them against
an ideal result desired by the firm.
Finally, we can consider that the proposed framework,
based on IDT (Rogers 2003), is one of the first attempts to
systematize the process of creating, measuring, and deciding
on investments in I4.0 technologies. By doing so, our frame-
work provides a guideline for measuring factors neglected
by previous investment assessment models.
5.2. Practical contribution and implications
Our results can contribute to manufacturing firms looking to
invest in I4.0 technologies by providing a step-by-step invest-
ment decision-making process that diminishes the current
difficulty to estimate its return on investment (Benitez, Ayala,
and Frank 2020). Managers can use our framework to obtain
more clarity in their investment appraisal processes.
Identifying the requirements and expected benefits before
deciding on whether to adopt or reject certain technologies
allows them to prioritize potential technology investments,
justify them, and reject undesirable projects. Additionally,
this process can be followed by aggregating inputs from
multiple decision-makers.
The proposed framework and the results of our empirical
case study allowed us to identify some insights for decision-
makers. First, the framework evidences the need for a stra-
tegical definition of the firm’s I4.0 path. In this path, projects
that the company may not be able to execute at the
moment may arise. In this sense, our framework drives man-
agers to evaluate the prior conditions, which sometimes may
point to a provisional rejection of projects. In some cases, to
deal with these projects, our case study identified the use of
PoCs as an alternative. This is a practice adopted by AGRI to
test the impacts of such projects on a smaller scale before
making a final decision on their implementation.
Another contribution of our study is a classification of dif-
ferent categories of investments in I4.0 technologies. The
classification of investments in Strategic or structuring invest-
ment, Value-creating investment, and Side investment helps
managers to understand which returns to expect from each
type of investment and which factors should be prioritized
during the investment appraisal. It also clarifies the relation-
ship between investments in the different stages of an
Industry 4.0 path. In this way, projects can be planned to be
complemented in the future (Benitez et al. 2022). For
example, an ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system may
be implemented and prepared for future integration with an
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 15
MES (Manufacturing execution system) (Frank, Dalenogare,
and Ayala 2019). Or new machines can be implemented with
the same protocol to communicate via IoT and M2M in the
future (Kagermann, Wahlster, and Helbig 2013). Finally, our
study also identified a set of criteria that managers can
adopt to guide their I4.0 investment decisions.
5.3. Limitations and future research
Although our framework considers strategic aspects in
which suitability can be one of the pursued targets of the
companies or a regulatory requirement, one limitation is
that this dimension was not a central aspect of the pro-
posed framework for I4.0 technologies evaluation. While
manufacturing is moving towards a green perspective, this
dimension may require becoming an additional sociotechni-
cal dimension and not only one of the elements of the four
considered dimensions, as previously proposed in other
multicriteria frameworks for technology assessment (Frank
et al. 2016). Secondly, we applied our framework in a large-
sized company with a clear strategy and investment plans.
However, being a single case study may be a limitation for
the generalizability of our findings. Thus, we encourage
other researchers to test our framework in other firms.
Future research can also test and adapt the framework to
small and medium-sized firms that need a structured view
of their operational strategy before investing in I4.0 tech-
nologies. Moreover, since our model only supports manag-
ers in the initial stages of the decision on whether to invest
in a certain project, we suggest the future incorporation of
an evaluation tool during the implementation stages of I4.0
projects. This tool could be adapted to the Industry 4.0 con-
text to support ongoing decisions like proceed, reduce,
abandon, or expand the chosen project. Another opportun-
ity is to add risk assessment, strategic, and sustainability
aspects in the persuasion stage to assess I4.0 technologies
investments, supplementing the three perspectives consid-
ered in this study. In this sense, our work delivers an initial
step of a project investment decision-making framework
which can support scholars in future studies incorporating
a broader scope of criteria and perspectives for the
appraisal of Industry 4.0 investment projects. Finally, our
study focuses only on investments in I4.0 technologies for
the manufacturing dimension. Since I4.0 also comprises
other dimensions such as smart working, smart products,
and smart supply chain (Frank, Dalenogare, and Ayala 2019;
Fettermann et al. 2020), future research can study technol-
ogy investments in these other dimensions where criteria
and strategic aspects might differ.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This project has received research funds from the Brazilian National
Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq – Conselho
16 R. P. ALMEIDA ET AL.
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient
ıfico e Tecnol
ogico) [Process n.
443680/2018–3 and 306034/2018–2], the Research Council of the State
of Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS, Fundaç~ao de Amparo a Pesquisa do
Estado do Rio Grande do Sul) [Process n. 17/2551–0001 and 21/2551-
0000658-7] and the Research Coordination of the Brazilian Ministry of
Education (CAPES) (PhD scholarship).
Notes on contributors
Rodrigo Pessotto Almeida is a Ph.D. candidate at the
Department of Industrial Engineering of the Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul – Brazil. He is mem-
ber of the Production Economics Group (N
ucleo de
Economia da Produç~ao – NECOP) at the same uni-
versity. His research is concerned with the invest-
ment assessment in Industry 4.0 technologies,
Production costs and Physical Asset Management.
N
estor Fabi

an Ayala, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor
of Service Engineering at the Federal University of
Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) – Brazil, and the codirec-
tor of the Organizational Engineering Group (NEO –
N
ucleo de Engenharia Organizacional) also at UFRGS.
He has been a visiting scholar at the Institute
Polytechnic of Grenoble (Grenoble INP), France. His
main research interests include strategic manage-
ment, and operations management with focus on
servitization and Industry 4.0.
Guilherme Brittes Benitez is a Ph.D. in Industrial
Engineering at the School of Engineering of the
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).
Currently, he is a postdoctoral researcher at UFRGS.
He is a Research Fellow from the Organizational
Engineering Group (NEO-UFRGS). His main research
field is operations management, emphasising
Industry 4.0, digital technologies, ecosystems, supply
chains, platforms, and business models.
Francisco Jos
e Kliemann Neto, Ph.D. is an Associate
Professor at the Department of Industrial
Engineering of the Federal University of Rio Grande
do Sul (UFRGS) – Brazil, and the director of the of
the Production Economics Group (N
ucleo de
Economia da Produç~ao – NECOP) at the
same university.
Alejandro G. Frank, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at
the Department of Industrial Engineering of the
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) and
a Research Affiliate at the MIT Industrial Performance
Centre. At UFRGS, he is the Director of the
Organizational Engineering Group. He received Ph.D.
(2013) and M.Eng. (2009) degrees in Industrial
Engineering from UFRGS, Brazil, and a B.Eng. degree
in Industrial Engineering (2007) from the National
University of Misiones (UNaM), Argentina. He has been a visiting scholar
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA), and at Politecnico di
Milano (Italy). His research is devoted to the interface between
operations and technology management, with emphasis on digital trans-
formation, Industry 4.0, and new business models in manufactur-
ing firms.
ORCID
Rodrigo Pessotto Almeida http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8103-4960
N
estor Fabi
an Ayala http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8888-9227
Guilherme Brittes Benitez http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1222-4557
Francisco Jos
e Kliemann Neto http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8881-9226
Alejandro Germ
an Frank http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5041-6467
References
Agostini, L., and A. Nosella. 2019. “The Adoption of Industry 4.0
Technologies in SMEs: Results of an International Study.” Management
Decision 58 (4): 625–643. doi:10.1108/MD-09-2018-0973.
Agrifoglio, R., C. Cannavale, E. Laurenza, and C. Metallo. 2017. “How
Emerging Digital Technologies Affect Operations Management
through co-Creation. Empirical Evidence from the Maritime Industry.”
Production Planning & Control 28 (16): 1298–1306. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2017.1375150.
Alshamaila, Y., S. Papagiannidis, and F. Li. 2013. “Cloud Computing
Adoption by SMEs in the North East of England: A Multi-Perspective
Framework.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 26 (3):
250–275. doi:10.1108/17410391311325225.
Atkinson, A. A., R. S. Kaplan, E. M. Matsumura, and S. M. Young. 2012.
Management Accounting: information for Decision Making and Strategy
Execution. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.
Bai, C., and J. Sarkis. 2017. “Improving Green Flexibility through
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Investment: Modeling the
Decision Process.” International Journal of Production Economics 188:
86–104. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.03.013.
Bai, C., P. Dallasega, G. Orzes, and J. Sarkis. 2020. “Industry 4.0 Technologies
Assessment: A Sustainability Perspective.” International Journal of
Production Economics 229: 107776. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107776.
Bednar, P. M., and C. Welch. 2020. “Socio-Technical Perspectives on Smart
Working: Creating Meaningful and Sustainable Systems.” Information
Systems Frontiers 22 (2): 281–298. doi:10.1007/s10796-019-09921-1.
Beier, G., A. Ullrich, S. Niehoff, M. Reißig, and M. Habich. 2020. “Industry
4.0: How It is Defined from a Sociotechnical Perspective and How
Much Sustainability It includes – A Literature Review.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 259: 120856. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120856.
Benitez, G. B., M. Ferreira-Lima, N. F. Ayala, and A. G. Frank. 2022.
“Industry 4.0 Technology Provision: The Moderating Role of Supply
Chain Partners to Support Technology Providers.” Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 27 (1): 89–112. doi:10.1108/
SCM-07-2020-0304.
Benitez, G. B., N. F. Ayala, and A. G. Frank. 2020. “Industry 4.0 Innovation
Ecosystems: An Evolutionary Perspective on Value Cocreation.”
International Journal of Production Economics 228 (October): 107735.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107735.
Bose, R., and X. Luo. 2011. “Integrative Framework for Assessing Firms’
Potential to Undertake Green IT Initiatives via virtualization - A
Theoretical Perspective.” The Journal of Strategic Information Systems
20 (1): 38–54. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2011.01.003.
Bosman, L., N. Hartman, and J. Sutherland. 2019. “How Manufacturing
Firm Characteristics Can Influence Decision Making for Investing in
Industry 4.0 Technologies.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 31 (5): 1117–1141. doi:10.1108/JMTM-09-2018-0283.
Brynjolfsson, E., and L. Hitt. 1996. “Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on
the Returns to Information Systems Spending.” Management Science
42 (4): 541–558. doi:10.1287/mnsc.42.4.541.
Chan, F. T. S., M. H. Chan, H. Lau, and R. W. L. Ip. 2001. “Investment
Appraisal Techniques for Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT):
A Literature Review.” Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12 (1): 35–47.
doi:10.1108/09576060110361528.
Cheng, Y., R. Matthiesen, S. Farooq, J. Johansen, H. Hu, and L. Ma. 2018.
“The Evolution of Investment Patterns on Advanced Manufacturing

Technology (AMT) in Manufacturing Operations: A Longitudinal
Analysis.” International Journal of Production Economics 203: 239–253.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.06.019.
Cherns, A. 1976. “The Principles of Sociotechnical Design.” Human
Relations 8 (9): 783–792.
Contador, J. C., W. C. Satyro, J. L. Contador, and M. M. Spinola. 2020.
“Flexibility in the Brazilian Industry 4.0: Challenges and
Opportunities.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 21 (S1):
15–31. doi:10.1007/s40171-020-00240-y.
Copeland, T. E., F. J. Weston, and K. Shastri. 2004. Financial Theory and
Corporate Policy. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dalenogare, L. S., G. B. Benitez, N. F. Ayala, and A. G. Frank. 2018. “The
Expected Contribution of Industry 4.0 Technologies for Industrial
Performance.” International Journal of Production Economics 204
(October): 383–394. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.019.
Dalenogare, L. S., M. M. Baseggio, N. F. Ayala, M. A. Le Dain, and A. G.
Frank. 2019. “The Contribution of Smart Glasses for PSS.” Procedia
CIRP 83: 318–323. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.307.
Davies, P., G. Parry, K. Alves, and I. Ng. 2020. “How Additive
Manufacturing Allows Products to Absorb Variety in Use: Empirical
Evidence from the Defence Industry.” Production Planning & Control
2020 (0): 1–18. doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.1810763..
Davies, R., T. Coole, and A. Smith. 2017. “Review of Socio-Technical
Considerations to Ensure Successful Implementation of Industry 4.0.”
Procedia Manufacturing 11: 1288–1295. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.256.
Davis, M. C., R. Challenger, D. N. W. Jayewardene, and C. W. Clegg. 2014.
“Advancing Socio-Technical Systems Thinking: A Call for Bravery.”
Applied Ergonomics 45 (2): 171–180. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.02.009.
Dornelles, J., A. de, N. F. Ayala, and A. G. Frank. 2021. “Smart Working in
Industry 4.0: How Digital Technologies Enhance Manufacturing
Workers’ Activities.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 2021: 107804.
doi:10.1016/j.cie.2021.107804.
Dreyer, S., A. Egger, L. P€ uschel, and M. R€ oglinger. 2020. “Prioritising
Smart Factory investments – A Project Portfolio Selection Approach.”
International Journal of Production Research 2020: 1–17. doi:10.1080/
00207543.2020.1849845.
Enrique, D. V., N. F. Ayala, M. J. D. R. F. Lima, G. A. Marodin, L. Gzara, and
A. G. Frank. 2018. “The Use of ICT Tools to Support Collaborative
Product Development Activities: Evidences from Brazilian Industry.”
Production 28 (0): 99. doi:10.1590/0103-6513.20170099.
Evans, L., N. Lohse, and M. Summers. 2013. “A Fuzzy-Decision-Tree
Approach for Manufacturing Technology Selection Exploiting
Experience-Based Information.” Expert Systems with Applications 40
(16): 6412–6426. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.05.047.
Felsberger, A., F. H. Qaiser, A. Choudhary, and G. Reiner. 2020. “The
Impact of Industry 4.0 on the Reconciliation of Dynamic Capabilities:
Evidence from the European Manufacturing Industries.” Production
Planning & Control 2020 (0): 1–24. doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.
1810765.
Fettermann, D. C., C. G. S. Cavalcante, N. F. Ayala, and M. C. Avalone.
2020. “Configuration of a Smart Meter for Brazilian Customers.”
Energy Policy 139: 111309. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111309.
Frank, A. G., D. V. S. Souza, J. L. D. Ribeiro, and M. E. Echeveste. 2013. “A
Framework for Decision-Making in Investment Alternatives Selection.”
International Journal of Production Research 51 (19): 5866–5883. doi:
10.1080/00207543.2013.802393.
Frank, A. G., L. S. Dalenogare, and N. F. Ayala. 2019. “Industry 4.0
Technologies: Implementation Patterns in Manufacturing Companies.”
International Journal of Production Economics 210 (January): 15–26.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.004.
Frank, A. G., N. D. Molle, W. Gerstlberger, J. A. B. Bernardi, and D. C.
Pedrini. 2016. “An Integrative Environmental Performance Index for
Benchmarking in Oil and Gas Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production
133: 1190–1203. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.064.
Ghobakhloo, M. 2018. “The Future of Manufacturing Industry: A Strategic
Roadmap toward Industry 4.0.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 29 (6): 910–936. doi:10.1108/JMTM-02-2018-0057.
Ghobakhloo, M. 2019. “Determinants of Information and Digital
Technology Implementation for Smart Manufacturing.” International
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 17
Journal of Production Research 58 (8): 1–22. doi:10.1080/00207543.
2019.1630775.
Ghobakhloo, M., and N. T. Ching. 2019. “Adoption of Digital
Technologies of Smart Manufacturing in SMEs.” Journal of Industrial
Information Integration 16: 100107. doi:10.1016/j.jii.2019.100107.
Gillani, F., K. A. Chatha, M. S. S. Jajja, and S. Farooq. 2020.
“Implementation of Digital Manufacturing Technologies: Antecedents
and Consequences.” International Journal of Production Economics 229
(November): 107748. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107748.
Hendrick, H. W., and B. M. Kleiner. 2001. Macroergonomics: An
Introduction to Work System Design. Santa Monica: Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society.
Herceg, I. V., V. Kuc, V. M. Mijuskovic, and T. Herceg. 2020. “Challenges
and Driving Forces for Industry 4.0 Implementation.” Sustainability 12
(10): 208. doi:10.3390/su12104208,
Horv
ath, D., and R. Z. Szab
o. 2019. “Driving Forces and Barriers of
Industry 4.0: Do Multinational and Small and Medium-Sized
Companies Have Equal Opportunities?” Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 146: 119–132. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.021.
Hoyer, C., I. Gunawan, and C. H. Reaiche. 2020. “The Implementation of
Industry 4.0 – A Systematic Literature Review of the Key Factors.”
Systems Research and Behavioral Science 37 (4): 557–578. doi:10.1002/
sres.2701.
Jiao, Y.-Y., J. Du, and J. R. Jiao. 2007. “A Financial Model of Flexible
Manufacturing Systems Planning under Uncertainty: identification,
Valuation and Applications of Real Options.” International Journal of
Production Research 45 (6): 1389–1404. doi:10.1080/10298430600677479.
Jin, L., R. Mesiar, and R. Yager. 2019. “Ordered Weighted Averaging
Aggregation on Convex Poset.” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 27
(3): 612–617. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2893371.
Kadir, B. A., O. Broberg, and C. Souza. 2019. “Current Research and
Future Perspectives on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Industry
4.0.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 137 (July): 106004. doi:10.
1016/j.cie.2019.106004.
Kagermann, H., W. Wahlster, and J. Helbig. 2013. “Recommendations for
Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0.” Final Report of
the Industrie 4.0 WG.
Kakati, M. 1997. “Strategic Evaluation of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology.” International Journal of Production Economics 53 (2):
141–156. doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(97)00115-1.
Kamble, S. S., A. Gunasekaran, A. Ghadge, and R. Raut. 2020. “A
Performance Measurement System for Industry 4.0 Enabled Smart
Manufacturing System in SMMEs- A Review and Empirical
Investigation.” International Journal of Production Economics 229:
107853. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107853.
Kamble, S. S., A. Gunasekaran, and R. Sharma. 2018. “Analysis of the
Driving and Dependence Power of Barriers to Adopt Industry 4.0 in
Indian Manufacturing Industry.” Computers in Industry 101: 107–119.
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2018.06.004.
Kessler, E. H. (Ed.). 2013. Encyclopedia of Management Theory. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Kiel, D., J. M. M€ uller, C. Arnold, and K.-I. Voigt. 2017. “Sustainable
Industrial Value Creation: Benefits and Challenges of Industry 4.0.”
International Journal of Innovation Management 21 (08): 1740015. doi:
10.1142/S1363919617400151.
Klingenberg, C. O., M. A. V. Borges, and J. A. V. Antunes. 2019. “Industry
4.0 as a Data-Driven Paradigm: A Systematic Literature Review on
Technologies.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 32
(3): 570–592. doi:10.1108/JMTM-09-2018-0325.
Kumar, R., H. Singh, and R. Chandel. 2018. “Exploring the Key Success
Factors of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Implementation in
Indian Manufacturing Industry.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 29 (1): 25–40. doi:10.1108/JMTM-03-2017-0057.
Lefley, F. 1996. “The Payback Method of Investment Appraisal: A Review
and Synthesis.” International Journal of Production Economics 44 (3):
207–224. doi:10.1016/0925-5273(96)00022-9.
Lin, B., W. Wu, and M. Song. 2019. “Industry 4.0: Driving Factors and
Impacts on Firm’s Performance: An Empirical Study on China’s
Manufacturing Industry.” Annals of Operations Research 2019, 6. doi:
10.1007/s10479-019-03433-6.
18 R. P. ALMEIDA ET AL.
Lu, H.-P., and C.-I. Weng. 2018. “Smart Manufacturing Technology,
Market Maturity Analysis and Technology Roadmap in the Computer
and Electronic Product Manufacturing Industry.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 133 (January): 85–94. doi:10.1016/j.
techfore.2018.03.005.
Mankiw, N. G., and M. P. Taylor. 2006. Microeconomics. Toronto:
Thomson Learning.
Marcon, E., M. Soliman, W. Gerstlberger, and A. G. Frank. 2021.
“Sociotechnical Factors and Industry 4.0: An Integrative Perspective
for the Adoption of Smart Manufacturing Technologies.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management ahead-of-print (ahead-of-
print): early view: 7. doi:10.1108/JMTM-01-2021-0017.
Masood, T., and J. Egger. 2019. “Augmented Reality in Support of
Industry 4.0 – Implementation Challenges and Success Factors.”
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 58: 181–195. doi:10.
1016/j.rcim.2019.02.003.
Meindl, B., N. F. Ayala, J. Mendonça, and A. G. Frank. 2021. “The Four
Smarts of Industry 4.0: Evolution of Ten Years of Research and Future
Perspectives.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 168 (July):
120784. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120784.
Meridith, J. R., and N. C. Surksh. 1986. “Justification Techniques for
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies.” International Journal of
Production Research 24 (5): 1043–1057. doi:10.1080/00207548608919787.
Merig
o, J. M., and M. Casanovas. 2011. “Induced Aggregation Operators
in the Euclidean Distance and Its Application in Financial Decision
Making.” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (6): 7603–7608. doi:10.
1016/j.eswa.2010.12.103.
Moher, D., L. Shamseer, M. Clarke, D. Ghersi, A. Liberati, M. Petticrew, P.
Shekelle, and L. A. Stewart. 2015. “Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015
Statement.” Systematic Reviews 4 (1): 1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
Moktadir, M. A., S. M. Ali, S. Kusi-Sarpong, and M. A. A. Shaikh. 2018.
“Assessing Challenges for Implementing Industry 4.0: Implications for
Process Safety and Environmental Protection.” Process Safety and
Environmental Protection 117: 730–741. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2018.04.020.
M€uller, J. M., D. Kiel, and K.-I. Voigt. 2018. “What Drives the
Implementation of Industry 4.0? The Role of Opportunities and
Challenges in the Context of Sustainability.” Sustainability 10 (1): 247.
doi:10.3390/su10010247.
Nguyen, T. U. H., and T. S. Waring. 2013. “The Adoption of Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) Technology in SMEs: An Empirical
Study.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 20 (4):
824–848. doi:10.1108/JSBED-01-2012-0013.
O’Brien, C., and S. J. E. Smith. 1993. “Design of the Decision Process for
Strategic Investment in Advanced Manufacturing Systems.”
International Journal of Production Economics 30–31 (C): 309–322. doi:
10.1016/0925-5273(93)90101-P.
Oesterreich, T. D., and F. Teuteberg. 2016. “Understanding the
Implications of Digitisation and Automation in the Context of
Industry 4.0: A Triangulation Approach and Elements of a Research
Agenda for the Construction Industry.” Computers in Industry 83:
121–139. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2016.09.006.
Ordoobadi, S. M. 2012. “Application of ANP Methodology in Evaluation
of Advanced Technologies.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 23 (2): 229–252. doi:10.1108/17410381211202214.
Pacchini, A. P. T., W. C. Lucato, F. Facchini, and G. Mummolo. 2019. “The
Degree of Readiness for the Implementation of Industry 4.0.”
Computers in Industry 113 (103125): 103125. doi:10.1016/j.compind.
2019.103125.
Raj, A., G. Dwivedi, A. Sharma, A. B. L. S. Jabbour, and S. Rajak. 2020.
“Barriers to the Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in the
Manufacturing Sector: An Inter-Country Comparative Perspective.”
International Journal of Production Economics 224: 107546. doi:10.
1016/j.ijpe.2019.107546.
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free
Press.
Saaty, T. L. 2004. “Decision Making – The Analytic Hierarchy and
Network Processes (AHP/ANP).” Journal of Systems Science and
Systems Engineering 13 (1): 1–35. doi:10.1007/s11518-006-0151-5.
Sambasivarao, K. V., and S. G. Deshmukh. 1997. “A Decision Support
System for Selection and Justification of Advanced Manufacturing
Technologies.” Production Planning & Control 8 (3): 270–284. doi:10.
1080/095372897235325.
Sanguinetti, A., B. Karlin, and R. Ford. 2018. “Understanding the Path to
Smart Home Adoption: Segmenting and Describing Consumers across
the Innovation-Decision Process.” Energy Research & Social Science 46
(June 2017): 274–283. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.002.
Schuh, G., R. Anderl, R. Dumitrescu, A. Kr€ uger, and M. T. Hompel. 2020.
“Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index. Managing the Digital Transformation of
Companies – UPDATE 2020 – (Acatech STUDY).”
Sim~oes, A. C., A. L. Soares, and A. C. Barros. 2020. “Factors Influencing
the Intention of Managers to Adopt Collaborative Robots (Cobots) in
Manufacturing Organizations.” Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management 57 (July): 101574. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101574.
Sony, M., and S. Naik. 2019. “Critical Factors for the Successful
Implementation of Industry 4.0: A Review and Future Research
Direction.” Production Planning & Control 47 (2): 1–17. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2019.1691278.
Sony, M., and S. Naik. 2020. “Industry 4.0 Integration with Socio-
Technical Systems Theory: A Systematic Review and Proposed
Theoretical Model.” Technology in Society 61 (April): 101248. doi:10.
1016/j.techsoc.2020.101248.
Stentoft, J., K. A. Wickstrom, K. Philipsen, and A. Haug. 2020. “Drivers
and Barriers for Industry 4.0 Readiness and Practice: Empirical
Evidence from Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers.” Production
Planning & Control 2020, 318. doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.1768318.
Strandhagen, J. W., S.-V. Buer, M. Semini, E. Alfnes, and J. O.
Strandhagen. 2020. “Sustainability Challenges and How Industry 4.0
Technologies Can Address Them: A Case Study of a Shipbuilding
Supply Chain.” Production Planning & Control 0 (0): 1–16. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2020.1837940.
Tabim, V. M., N. F. Ayala, and A. G. Frank. 2021. “Implementing Vertical
Integration in the Industry 4.0 Journey: Which Factors Influence the
Process of Information Systems Adoption?” Information Systems
Frontiers 2021: 1–18. doi:10.1007/s10796-021-10220-x.
Tan, K. H., C. P. Lim, K. Platts, and H. S. Koay. 2006. “An Intelligent
Decision Support System for Manufacturing Technology Investments.”
International Journal of Production Economics 104 (1): 179–190. doi:10.
1016/j.ijpe.2005.02.010.
Veile, J. W., D. Kiel, J. M. M€uller, and K.-I. Voigt. 2019. “Lessons Learned
from Industry 4.0 Implementation in the German Manufacturing
Industry.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 31 (5):
977–997. doi:10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0270.
Voss, C., N. Tsikriktsis, and M. Frohlich. 2002. “Case Research in Operations
Management.” International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 22 (2): 195–219. doi:10.1108/01443570210414329.
Wagire, A. A., R. Joshi, A. P. S. Rathore, and R. Jain. 2021. “Development
of Maturity Model for Assessing the Implementation of Industry 4.0:
Learning from Theory and Practice.” Production Planning & Control 32
(8): 603–620. doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.1744763.
Wei, J., P. B. Lowry, and S. Seedorf. 2015. “The Assimilation of RFID
Technology by Chinese Companies: A Technology Diffusion
Perspective.” Information & Management 52 (6): 628–642. doi:10.1016/
j.im.2015.05.001.
Yeh, C.-C., and Y.-F. Chen. 2018. “Critical Success Factors for Adoption of
3D Printing.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 132
(January): 209–216. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.003.
Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Los Angeles:
SAGE.
Zhou, H., G. K. Leong, P. Jonsson, and C.-C. Sum. 2009. “A Comparative
Study of Advanced Manufacturing Technology and Manufacturing
Infrastructure Investments in Singapore and Sweden.” International
Journal of Production Economics 120 (1): 42–53. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.
07.013.
Zhu, Q., P. Shah, and J. Sarkis. 2018. “Integrating Product Deletion with
Lean and Sustainable Supply Chain Management.” International
Journal of Production Economics 205: 201–214. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.
08.035.
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 19

Appendix A. Systematic literature review process OR ‘implementation’ OR ‘criteria’ OR ‘determinants’ OR ‘challenges’ OR

for the identification of sociotechnical factors
Searches were carried out on the Scopus, Web of Science, and
ScienceDirect databases. The initial search combined the terms ‘Industry
4.0’ and ‘sociotechnical’, resulting in few papers with specific approaches
on investment appraisal criteria in the I4.0 context. Thus, a search proto-
col was defined. We used the combination of the terms ‘Industry 4.0’
OR ‘smart manufacturing’ OR ‘Advanced manufacturing’ AND ‘adoption’
‘factors’ OR ‘barriers’ in the title, AND ‘Production system’ OR
‘manufacturing’ in title-abstract–keywords. This initial search provided
605 articles. Only papers up to 2015, in English, were selected (199
articles). Next, duplicate articles were removed (128 articles). Two other
filters were applied: (i) Publication type: journal articles; and (ii) Content:
Articles that highlighted factors related to the adoption of I4.0 technolo-
gies (27 articles). Finally, five additional papers were selected, using for-
ward and backward snowball techniques (32 articles) (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Process for selecting articles.

Appendix B. Information about the experts who participated in the assessment of the list of Sociotechnical factors.
Expert Expert field Role Area or Research field Experience Countries of activities
Expert 1 Academic Professor of Industrial Industry 4.0 and Servitization > 13 years Brazil and France
Engineering and
Researcher, Ph.D.
Expert 2 Academic Associate Professor of Servitization, Industry 4.0, and > 14 years Brazil and Italy
Industrial Engineering and Digital Transformation
Researcher, Ph.D.
Expert 3 Academic Postdoc student in Industrial Industry 4.0, Ecosystems, and > 7 years Brazil and Italy
Engineering, Ph.D. Supply Chain
Expert 4 Academic Ph.D. candidate in Industrial Industry 4.0 and Smart > 10 years Brazil and France
Engineering Product-Service Systems
Expert 5 Academic Associate Professor of Economic engineering, Costs, > 40 years Brazil and France
Industrial Engineering and Investment Appraisal
and Consultant
Expert 6 Industry Executive Director Industry 4.0 and > 22 years Brazil
Industrial Automation
Expert 7 Industry Director of Institute of Digital Manufacturing and > 20 years Brazil and Germany
Technology, Ph.D. Innovation Management
Expert 8 Industry Digital Manufacturing Digital Manufacturing and > 15 years Brazil
Process Engineer Industrial Engineering
Expert 9 Industry Industry 4.0 Process Engineer Industry 4.0 and Industrial > 5 years Brazil and England
Engineering
20 R. P. ALMEIDA ET AL.

Appendix C. Information about the AGRI experts who participated in the framework testing and validation.
Interviewees Role Area Experience Experience at AGRI
Expert 1 Advanced Manufacturing Engineering Manager Advanced Manufacturing > 25 years > 18 years
Expert 2 Industry 4.0 Process Engineer Advanced Manufacturing > 10 years > 4 years
Expert 3 Continuous Improvement Engineer Advanced Manufacturing > 7 years > 5 years
Expert 4 IT Manager Manufacturing business > 30 years > 7 years
Expert 5 Product Engineering Manager Design and rolling out of new products > 10 years > 5 years

Appendix D.
Appendix D. Worksheet for assessment of sociotechnical criteria (Figure 6)

Figure 6. Worksheet for assessment of sociotechnical criteria.