CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 348Digital Transformation in IndustryInternet of Things and AIImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society

The dual effects of the Internet of Things (IoT): A systematic review of the benefits and risks of IoT adoption by organizations

Open access
Brous, Paul, Janssen, Marijn, Herder, Paulien·2020·International Journal of Information Management
DOI 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) might yield many benefits for organizations, but like other technology adoptions may also introduce unforeseen risks and requiring substantial organizational transformations. This paper analyzes IoT adoption by organizations, and identifies IoT benefits and risks. A Big, Open, Linked Data (BOLD) categorization of the expected benefits and risks of IoT is made by conducting a comprehensive literature study. In-depth case studies in the field of asset management were then executed to examine the actual experienced, real world benefits and risks. The duality of technology is used as our theoretical lens to understand the interactions between organization and technology. The results confirm the duality that gaining the benefits of IoT in asset management produces unexpected social changes that lead to structural transformation of the organization. IoT can provide organizations with many benefits, after having dealt with unexpected risks and making the necessary organizational changes. There is a need to introduce changes to the organization, processes and systems, to develop capabilities and ensure that IoT fits the organization’s purposes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.008

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • La incorporación de sensores, dispositivos de escaneo y conectividad en tiempo real permite convertir sistemas visuales tradicionales en plataformas digitales inteligentes que aumentan la trazabilidad, reducen errores humanos y mejoran la toma de decisiones en tiempo real.

    “La incorporación de sensores, dispositivos de escaneo y conectividad en tiempo real permite convertir sistemas visuales tradicionales en plataformas digitales inteligentes que aumentan la trazabilidad, reducen errores humanos y mejoran la toma de decisiones en tiempo real [10], [11].”

    From Integración del IoT a un sistema Kanban para el ensamble de elementos plásticos (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 92

  1. Allen, J. P. (2003). The evolution of new mobile applications: A sociotechnical perspec- tive. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(1), 23-36.
  2. Aono, K., Lajnef, N., Faridazar, F., & Chakrabartty, S. (2016). Infrastructural health monitoring using self-powered internet-of-things. 2016 IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems (ISCAS), 2058-2061.
  3. Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15), 2787-2805.
  4. Backer, T. E., Liberman, R. P., & Kuehnel, T. G. (1986). Dissemination and adoption of innovative psychosocial interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(1), 111-118.
  5. Bagui, S., Das, A., & Bapanapalli, C. (2013). Controlling vehicle overloading in BOT projects. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 104, 962-971. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.191. · DOI
  6. Barde, M. P., & Barde, P. J. (2012). What to use to express the variability of data: Standard deviation or standard error of mean? Perspectives in Clinical Research, 3(3), 113-116. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.100662. · DOI
  7. Bi, Z., Da Xu, L., & Wang, C. (2014). Internet of Things for enterprise systems of modern manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 10(2), 1537-1546.
  8. Blackstock, M., & Lea, R. (2012). IoT mashups with the WoTKit. 2012 3rd international conference on the internet of things (IOT), 159-166. https://doi.org/10.1109/IOT. 2012.6402318. · DOI
  9. Boos, D., Guenter, H., Grote, G., & Kinder, K. (2013). Controllable accountabilities: The internet of things and its challenges for organisations. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(5), 449-467.
  10. Boulos, M. N. K., & Al-Shorbaji, N. M. (2014). On the internet of things, smart cities and the WHO healthy cities. International Journal of Health Geographics, 13(1), 10.
  11. Boyne, G. A., Gould-Williams, J. S., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2005). Explaining the adoption of innovation: An empirical analysis of public management reform. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23(3), 419-435. https://doi.org/ 10.1068/c40m. · DOI
  12. Brous, P., & Janssen, M. (2015a). A systematic review of impediments blocking internet of things adoption by governments. In M. Janssen, M. Mäntymäki, J. Hidders, B. Klievink, W. Lamersdorf, B. van Loenen, & A. Zuiderwijk (Eds.). Open and big data management and innovation (pp. 81-94). . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25013- 7_7. · DOI
  13. Brous, P., & Janssen, M. (2015b). Advancing e-government using the internet of things: A systematic review of benefits. In E. Tambouris, M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, M. A. Wimmer, K. Tarabanis, M. Gascó, & P. Parycek (Eds.). Electronic government (pp. 156- 169). . Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-22479- 4_12. · DOI
  14. Brous, P., Janssen, M., & Herder, P. (2018). Internet of Things adoption for reconfiguring decision-making processes in asset management. Business Process Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2017-0328. · DOI
  15. Brous, P., Janssen, M., & Vilminko-Heikkinen, R. (2016). Coordinating decision-making in data management activities: A systematic review of data governance principles. International conference on electronic government and the information systems perspective, 115-125.
  16. Castelnovo, W., Misuraca, G., & Savoldelli, A. (2015). Smart cities governance. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 724-739. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0894439315611103. · DOI
  17. Castro, D. (2008). Digital quality of life: Government (SSRN scholarly paper No. ID 1285002). Retrieved from website:Social Science Research Networkhttp://papers. ssrn.com/abstract=1285002.
  18. Chen, X.-Y., & Jin, Z.-G. (2012). Research on key technology and applications for Internet of Things. Physics Procedia, 33, 561-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2012.05. 104. · DOI
  19. Choudrie, J., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2005). Investigating the research approaches for ex- amining technology adoption issues. Journal of Research Practice, 1(1), 1.
  20. Chui, M., Löffler, M., & Roberts, R. (2010). The internet of things. McKinsey Quarterly, 2(2010), 1-9.
  21. Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998). Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: The role of environmental change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(97) 00029-5. · DOI
  22. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in orga- nizations: Effects of environment, organization and top Managers1. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003 Retrieved from JSTOR.
  24. Dwivedi, Y. K., Janssen, M., Slade, E. L., Rana, N. P., Weerakkody, V., Millard, J., & Snijders, D. (2017). Driving innovation through big open linked data (BOLD): Exploring antecedents using interpretive structural modelling. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9675-5. · DOI
  25. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Gilman, H., & Nordtvedt, J.-E. (2014). Intelligent energy: The past, the present, and the future. SPE Economics & Management, 6(4), 185-190 Retrieved from Scopus.
  27. Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013). Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(7), 1645-1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Haller, S., Karnouskos, S., & Schroth, C. (2009). The internet of things in an enterprise context. In J. Domingue, D. Fensel, & P. Traverso (Eds.). Future internet -FIS 2008 (pp. 14-28). . Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642- 00985-3_2. · DOI
  29. Harris, I., Wang, Y., & Wang, H. (2015). ICT in multimodal transport and technological trends: Unleashing potential for the future. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 88-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.005. · DOI
  30. Harrison, M. (2011). The'Internet of Things' and commerce. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 17(3), 19-22.
  31. Hashem, I. A. T., Chang, V., Anuar, N. B., Adewole, K., Yaqoob, I., Gani, A., ... Chiroma, H. (2016). The role of big data in smart city. International Journal of Information Management, 36(5), 748-758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.05.002. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Hashem, I. A. T., Yaqoob, I., Anuar, N. B., Mokhtar, S., Gani, A., & Khan, S. U. (2015). The rise of "big data" on cloud computing: Review and open research issues. Information Systems, 47, 98-115.
  33. Herder, P. M., de Joode, J., Ligtvoet, A., Schenk, S., & Taneja, P. (2011). Buying real options -Valuing uncertainty in infrastructure planning. Futures, 43(9), 961-969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.06.005. · DOI
  34. Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12(3), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810802479126. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Hossain, M. A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2014). What improves citizens' privacy perceptions toward RFID technology? A cross-country investigation using mixed method ap- proach. International Journal of Information Management, 34(6), 711-719. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.07.002. · DOI
  36. Hounsell, N. B., Shrestha, B. P., Piao, J., & McDonald, M. (2009). Review of urban traffic management and the impacts of new vehicle technologies. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 3(4), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2009.0046. · DOI
  37. Hsu, C.-L., & Lin, J. C.-C. (2018). Exploring factors affecting the adoption of internet of things services. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 58(1), 49-57. https://doi. org/10.1080/08874417.2016.1186524. · DOI
  38. Hummen, R., Henze, M., Catrein, D., & Wehrle, K. (2012). A Cloud design for user-con- trolled storage and processing of sensor data. 233-240. https://doi.org/10.1109/ CloudCom.2012.6427523. · DOI
  39. Kabanda, S., & Brown, I. (2017). A structuration analysis of Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) adoption of E-Commerce: The case of Tanzania. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 118-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.01.002. · DOI
  40. Kaisler, S., Armour, F., Espinosa, J. A., & Money, W. (2013). Big data: Issues and chal- lenges moving forward. 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), 995-1004.
  41. Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 232-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom. 2014.03.004. · DOI
  42. Kwon, D., Hodkiewicz, M. R., Fan, J., Shibutani, T., & Pecht, M. G. (2016). IoT-based prognostics and systems health management for industrial applications. IEEE Access, 4, 3659-3670. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587754. · DOI
  43. Kwon, O., Lee, N., & Shin, B. (2014). Data quality management, data usage experience and acquisition intention of big data analytics. International Journal of Information Management, 34(3), 387-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.02.002. · DOI
  44. Law, C. C. H., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2007). ERP systems adoption: An exploratory study of the organizational factors and impacts of ERP success. Information & Management, 44(4), 418-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.03.004. · DOI
  45. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191-204.
  46. Leonardi, P. (2013). Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Sociomateriality (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2212225). Rochester, NY. Social Science Research Network.
  47. Lin, J., Yu, W., Zhang, N., Yang, X., Zhang, H., & Zhao, W. (2017). A survey on internet of things: Architecture, enabling technologies, security and privacy, and applications. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 4(5), 1125-1142. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT. 2017.2683200. · DOI · Paper page
  48. López-Muñoz, J. F., & Escribá-Esteve, A. (2017). An upper echelons perspective on in- formation technology business value. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 23(3), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.02.003. · DOI
  49. Lytras, M. D., Mathkour, H., Abdalla, H. I., Yáñez-Márquez, C., & De Pablos, P. O. (2014). The social media in Academia and EducationResearch R-evolutions and a paradox: Advanced next generation social learning innovation. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20(15), 1987-1994.
  50. Ma, M., Wang, P., & Chu, C. H. (2013). Data management for internet of things: Challenges, approaches and opportunities. 2013 IEEE international conference on green computing and communications and IEEE internet of things and IEEE cyber, physical and social computing, 1144-1151. https://doi.org/10.1109/GreenCom-iThings-CPSCom. 2013.199. · DOI
  51. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance, Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308. · DOI · Paper page
  52. Mendel, P., Meredith, L. S., Schoenbaum, M., Sherbourne, C. D., & Wells, K. B. (2008). Interventions in organizational and community context: A framework for building evidence on dissemination and implementation in health services research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 35(1-2), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-007-0144-9. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Mihailovic, A. (2016). Liberalising deployment of internet of things devices and services in large scale environments. Wireless Personal Communications, 92(1), 33-49.
  54. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE.
  55. Mirvis, P. H., Sales, A. L., & Hackett, E. J. (1991). The implementation and adoption of new technology in organizations: The impact on work, people, and culture. Human Resource Management, 30(1), 113-139.
  56. Misuraca, G. (2009). Futuring e-government: Governance and policy implications for designing an ICT-enabled knowledge society. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance, 83-90. https://doi.org/10. 1145/1693042.1693060. · DOI
  57. Mitropoulos, P., & Tatum, C. B. (1999). Technology adoption decisions in construction organizations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(5), 330-338.
  58. Mulyun, A., Parikesit, D., Antameng, M., & Rahim, R. (2010). Analysis of loss cost of road pavement distress due to overloading freight transportation. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 8, 1020-1035.
  59. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2014). The changing face of a city government: A case study of Philly311. Government Information Quarterly, 31(Suppl. 1), S1-S9. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.giq.2014.01.002. · DOI
  60. Neisse, R., Baldini, G., Steri, G., & Mahieu, V. (2016). Informed consent in internet of things: The case study of cooperative intelligent transport systems. Presented at the 2016 23rd international conference on telecommunications (ICT).
  61. Ortiz, P., Lazaro, O., Uriarte, M., & Carnerero, M. (2013). Enhanced multi-domain access control for secure mobile collaboration through linked data cloud in manufacturing. 2013 IEEE 14th international symposium and workshops on a world of wireless. mobile and multimedia networks (WoWMoM), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/WoWMoM. 2013.6583372. · DOI
  62. Otto, B. (2011). Organizing data governance: Findings from the telecommunications in- dustry and consequences for large service providers. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 29(1), 45-66.
  63. Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2009). Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03162.x. · DOI
  64. Peansupap, V., & Walker, D. (2005). Exploratory factors influencing information and communication technology diffusion and adoption within Australian construction organizations: A micro analysis. Construction Innovation Information Process Management, 5(3), 135-157.
  65. Pedro, M. R., & Jaska, P. (2007). Is RFID right for your organization or application? Management Research News, 30(8), 570-580. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 01409170710773706. · DOI
  66. Phares, B. M., Washer, G. A., Rolander, D. D., Graybeal, B. A., & Moore, M. (2004). Routine highway bridge inspection condition documentation accuracy and reliability. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 9(4), 403-413. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084- 0702(2004)9:4(403). · DOI
  67. Prasad, K. H., Faruquie, T. A., Joshi, S., Chaturvedi, S., Subramaniam, L. V., & Mohania, M. (2011). Data cleansing techniques for large enterprise datasets. April 29135-144. https://doi.org/10.1109/SRII.2011. · DOI
  68. Qian, X., & Che, X. (2012). Security-enhanced search engine design in internet of things. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(9), 1218-1235. · DOI
  69. Qiao, H., & Wang, G. (2012). An analysis of the evolution in internet of things industry based on industry life cycle theory. In R. Chen, D. Sun, & W. P. Sung (Eds.). Frontiers of advanced materials and engineering technology, Pts 1-3 (pp. 785-789). . Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84862928741& partnerID=40&md5=7efea368946ebc1149f867087d911307.
  70. Ramos, C., Augusto, J. C., & Shapiro, D. (2008). Ambient intelligence-the next step for artificial intelligence. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23(2), 15-18. https://doi.org/10.1109/ MIS.2008. · DOI
  71. Rathore, M. M., Ahmad, A., Paul, A., & Thikshaja, U. K. (2016). Exploiting real-time big data to empower smart transportation using big graphs. 135-139. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TENCONSpring.2016.7519392. · DOI
  72. Reyes, P. M., Li, S., & Visich, J. K. (2012). Accessing antecedents and outcomes of RFID implementation in health care. International Journal of Production Economics, 136(1), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.09.024. · DOI
  73. Rogers, M. E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press.
  74. Scarfo, A. (2014). Internet of things, the smart X enabler. 2014 International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems (INCoS), 569-574. https://doi.org/10. 1109/INCoS.2014. · DOI
  75. Shadbolt, N., O'Hara, K., Berners-Lee, T., Gibbins, N., Glaser, H., Hall, W., & Schraefel, M. C. (2012). Linked open government data: Lessons from Data.gov.uk. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27(3), 16-24. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2012. · DOI
  76. Skarmeta, A. F., Hernandez-Ramos, J. L., & Moreno, M. V. (2014). A decentralized ap- proach for security and privacy challenges in the internet of things. 2014 IEEE world forum on internet of things (WF-IoT), 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1109/WF-IoT.2014. 6803122. · DOI
  77. Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (1999). The importance of a change-centred leadership style in four organizational cultures. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 15(3), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221(98)00028-1. · DOI
  78. Solomons, N. M., & Spross, J. A. (2011). Evidence-based practice barriers and facilitators from a continuous quality improvement perspective: An integrative review. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(1), 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010. 01144.x. · DOI
  79. Speed, C., & Shingleton, D. (2012). An Internet of cars: Connecting the flow of things to people, artefacts, environments and businesses. 11-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2307874.2307883. · DOI
  80. Stephan, E. G., Elsethagen, T. O., Wynne, A. S., Sivaraman, C., Macduff, M. C., Berg, L. K., & Shaw, W. J. (2013). A linked fusion of things, services, and data to support a colla- borative data management facility. 2013 9th international conference conference on col- laborative computing: networking, applications and worksharing (Collaboratecom) 579-584.
  81. Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: Exploring the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innova- tions, and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6), 631-647. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00031-X. · DOI
  82. van Waart, P., Mulder, I., & de Bont, C. (2015). A participatory approach for envisioning a smart city. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 708-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0894439315611099. · DOI
  83. Vesyropoulos, N., & Georgiadis, C. K. (2013). Web of things: Understanding the growing opportunities for business transactions. Proceedings of the 6th Balkan Conference in Informatics, 267-274. https://doi.org/10.1145/2490257.2490287. · DOI
  84. Wahyudi, A., Pekkola, S., & Janssen, M. (2018). Representational quality challenges of big data: Insights from comparative case studies. In S. A. Al-Sharhan, A. C. Simintiras, Y. K. Dwivedi, M. Janssen, M. Mäntymäki, L. Tahat, & N. P. Rana (Eds.). Challenges and opportunities in the digital era (pp. 520-538). Springer International Publishing.
  85. Weber, K., Otto, B., & Österle, H. (2009). One Size Does Not Fit All: A Contingency Approach to Data Governance. Journal of Data and Information Quality, 1(4:1-4), 27.
  86. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13-23.
  87. Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual frame- work. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 297-326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. soc.28.110601.141051. · DOI
  88. Wu, I.-L., & Wu, K.-W. (2005). A hybrid technology acceptance approach for exploring e- CRM adoption in organizations. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(4), 303-316.
  89. Yazici, H. J. (2014). An exploratory analysis of hospital perspectives on real time in- formation requirements and perceived benefits of RFID technology for future adop- tion. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), 603-621. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.010. · DOI
  90. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications.
  91. Zeng, D., Guo, S., & Cheng, Z. (2011). The web of things: A survey. Journal of Communications, 6(6), 424-438. https://doi.org/10.4304/jcm.6.6.424-438. · DOI
  92. Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). The negative effects of open government data - Investigating the dark side of open data. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 147-152. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2612733.2612761. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brous, P., Janssen, M., & Herder, P.
Affiliations
Delft University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Brous, Paul
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Information Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
51
Pages
101952
ISSN
0268-4012 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.008
OpenAlex
W2945520428
Cited by
348
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Information Management (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Rijkswaterstaat, Netherlands
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Digital Transformation in Industry
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Internet of Things and AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
Keywords
Internet of Things, IoT adoption, organizational benefits, technological risk, asset management, organizational change, organizational capabilities, social change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review