Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 458

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Augmented reality in support of Industry 4.0—Implementation challenges and success factors

Open access
Masood, Tariq, Egger, Johannes·2019·Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
DOI 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.02.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Industrial augmented reality (AR) is an integral part of Industry 4.0 concepts, as it enables workers to access digital information and overlay that information with the physical world. While not being broadly adopted in some applications, the compound annual growth rate of the industrial AR market is projected to grow rapidly. Hence, it is important to understand the issues arising from implementation of AR in industry. This study identifies critical success factors and challenges for industrial AR implementation projects, based on an industry survey. The broadly used technology, organisation, environment (TOE) framework is used as a theoretical basis for the quantitative part of the questionnaire. A complementary qualitative part is used to underpin and extend the findings. It is found that, while technological aspects are of importance, organisational issues are more relevant for industry, which has not been reflected to the same extent in literature.

Overview

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.rcim.2019.02.003

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Funk, 2016, Interactive worker assistance Proceedings of the 2016, 934
  2. Saunders, 2009
  3. Nee, 2012, Augmented reality applications in design and manufacturing, CIRP Ann., 61, 657, 10.1016/j.cirp.2012.05.010 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Han, 2017, Line-based initialization method for mobile augmented reality in aircraft assembly, Vis. Comput., 33, 1185, 10.1007/s00371-016-1281-5 · DOI
  5. Reif, 2009, Pick-by-vision: augmented reality supported order picking, Vis. Comput., 25, 461, 10.1007/s00371-009-0348-y · DOI
  6. Hanson, 2017, Augmented reality as a means of conveying picking information in kit preparation for mixed-model assembly, Comput. Ind. Eng., 113, 570, 10.1016/j.cie.2017.09.048 · DOI
  7. Stoltz, 2017, Augmented Reality in warehouse operations: opportunities and barriers, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50, 12979, 10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1807 · DOI
  8. Antonelli, 2015, Enhancing the quality of manual spot welding through augmented reality assisted guidance, Procedia CIRP, 33, 556, 10.1016/j.procir.2015.06.076 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.06.076
  9. Segovia, 2015, Augmented reality as a tool for production and quality monitoring, Procedia Comput. Sci., 75, 291, 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.250 · DOI
  10. Martinetti, 2017, Shaping the future maintenance operations: reflections on the adoptions of augmented reality through problems and opportunities, Procedia CIRP, 59, 14, 10.1016/j.procir.2016.10.130 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.10.130
  11. Masoni, 2017, Supporting remote maintenance in Industry 4.0 through augmented reality, Procedia Manuf., 11, 1296, 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.257 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Mourtzis, 2017, Augmented reality application to support remote maintenance as a service in the robotics industry, Procedia CIRP, 63, 46, 10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.154 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Palmarini, 2017, An innovative process to select Augmented Reality (AR) technology for maintenance, Procedia CIRP, 59, 23, 10.1016/j.procir.2016.10.001 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.10.001
  14. Zhu, 2012, An authorable context-aware augmented reality system to assist the maintenance technicians, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 45, 1699
  15. Soete, 2015, Towards mixed reality in SCADA applications, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48, 2417, 10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.450 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.450
  16. Masood, 2018, Future-proofing the through-life engineering service systems, Procedia Manuf., 16, 179, 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.162 · DOI
  17. Makris, 2016, Augmented reality system for operator support in human–robot collaborative assembly, CIRP Ann., 65, 61, 10.1016/j.cirp.2016.04.038 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Michalos, 2018, Seamless human robot collaborative assembly - an automotive case study, Mechatronics, 1
  19. Palmarini, 2018, A systematic review of augmented reality applications in maintenance, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 49, 215, 10.1016/j.rcim.2017.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Gattullo, 2019, Towards augmented reality manuals for industry 4.0: a methodology, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 56, 276, 10.1016/j.rcim.2018.10.001 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Yew, 2016, Towards a griddable distributed manufacturing system with augmented reality interfaces, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 39, 43, 10.1016/j.rcim.2015.12.002 · DOI
  22. Matsas, 2018, Prototyping proactive and adaptive techniques for human-robot collaboration in manufacturing using virtual reality, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 50, 168, 10.1016/j.rcim.2017.09.005 · DOI
  23. Wang, 2016, Real-virtual components interaction for assembly simulation and planning, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 41, 102, 10.1016/j.rcim.2016.03.005 · DOI
  24. Fang, 2012, Interactive robot trajectory planning and simulation using augmented reality, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf, 28, 227, 10.1016/j.rcim.2011.09.003 · DOI
  25. Chong, 2009, Robot programming using augmented reality: an interactive method for planning collision-free paths, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 25, 689, 10.1016/j.rcim.2008.05.002 · DOI
  26. Holm, 2017, Adaptive instructions to novice shop-floor operators using augmented reality, J. Ind. Prod. Eng., 34, 362
  27. Syberfeldt, 2016, Support systems on the industrial shop-floors of the future – operators’ perspective on augmented reality, Procedia CIRP, 44, 108, 10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.017 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.017
  28. Wang, 2018, Mechanical assembly assistance using marker-less augmented reality system, Assembly Autom., 38, 77, 10.1108/AA-11-2016-152 · DOI
  29. M. Majewski, W. Kacalak, Human-machine speech-based interfaces with augmented reality and interactive systems for controlling mobile cranes interactive collaborative robotics (2016) 89–98. · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43955-6_12
  30. Zhou, 2007, The role of 3-D sound in human reaction and performance in augmented reality environments, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., 37, 262, 10.1109/TSMCA.2006.886376 · DOI
  31. Radkowski, 2012, Interactive hand gesture-based assembly for augmented reality applications, ACHI, 303
  32. Wang, 2016, Multi-modal augmented-reality assembly guidance based on bare-hand interface, Adv. Eng. Inf., 30, 406, 10.1016/j.aei.2016.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Hou, 2013, A study on the benefits of augmented reality in retaining working memory in assembly tasks: a focus on differences in gender, Autom. Constr., 32, 38, 10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.007 · DOI
  34. Mourtzis, 2017, Cloud-based augmented reality remote maintenance through shop-floor monitoring: a product-service system approach, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 139, 1, 10.1115/1.4035721 · DOI
  35. Serván, 2012, Assembly work instruction deployment using augmented reality, Key Eng. Mater., 502, 25, 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.502.25 · doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.502.25
  36. Porcelli, 2013, Technical and organizational issues about the introduction of augmented reality in maintenance and technical assistance services, IFAC Proc. Vol., 46, 257, 10.3182/20130522-3-BR-4036.00024 · DOI
  37. Gavish, 2013, Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks, Interact. Learn. Environ., 23, 778, 10.1080/10494820.2013.815221 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Doshi, 2017, Use of projector based augmented reality to improve manual spot-welding precision and accuracy for automotive manufacturing, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 89, 1279, 10.1007/s00170-016-9164-5 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Zhu, 2005, Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: cross-country evidence from the retail industry, Inf. Syst. Res., 16, 61, 10.1287/isre.1050.0045 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Zhu, 2010, What leads to post-implementation success of ERP?: an empirical study of the Chinese retail industry, Int. J. Inf. Manage., 30, 265, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.09.007 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Jia, 2017, Enterprise 2.0 post-adoption: extending the information system continuance model based on the technology-organization-environment framework, Comput. Hum. Behav., 67, 95, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.022 · DOI
  42. Lee, 2017, An exploratory study of radio frequency identification (RFID) adoption in the healthcare industry, Eur. J. Inf. Syst., 16, 712, 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000716 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Scupola, 2014, The adoption of internet commerce by SMEs in the south of Italy: an environmental, technological and organizational perspective, J. Global Inf. Technol. Manage., 6, 52
  44. Mishra, 2007, Antecedents and consequences of Internet use in procurement: an empirical investigation of U.S. manufacturing firms, Inf. Syst. Res., 18, 103, 10.1287/isre.1070.0115 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Abdollahzadehgan, 2013, The organizational ciritical success factors for adopting cloud computing in SMEs, JISRI, 67
  46. K.N. Kumar, S. Chandra, S. Bharati et al., Factors Influencing Adoption of Augmented Reality Technology for e-Commerce PACIS Proceedings 2016 1–9.
  47. Sun, 2016, Understanding the factors affecting the organizational adoption of big data, J. Comput. Inf. Syst., 58, 193
  48. Yeh, 2018, Critical success factors for adoption of 3D printing, Technol. Forecast.Soc. Change, 132, 209, 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.003 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Davis, 1989, User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models, Manage. Sci., 35, 982, 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Oliveira, 2014, Assessing the determinants of cloud computing adoption: an analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors, Inf. Manage., 51, 497, 10.1016/j.im.2014.03.006 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Gangwar, 2015, Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model, J. Enterp. Inf. Manage., 28, 107, 10.1108/JEIM-08-2013-0065 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Gonçalves, 2016, Factors that influence the adoption and implementation of public digital accounting according to the evaluation by managers of brazilian companies, J. Inf. Syst. Technol. Manage., 13, 193
  53. Chwelos, 2001, Research report: empirical test of an EDI adoption model, Inf. Syst. Res., 12, 304, 10.1287/isre.12.3.304.9708 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Zhu, 2004, Information technology payoff in e-business environments: an international perspective on value creation of e-business in the financial services industry, J.Manage. Inf. Syst., 21, 17, 10.1080/07421222.2004.11045797 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Espíndola, 2013, A model-based approach for data integration to improve maintenance management by mixed reality, Comput. Ind., 64, 376, 10.1016/j.compind.2013.01.002 · DOI
  56. Uva, 2018, Evaluating the effectiveness of spatial augmented reality in smart manufacturing: a solution for manual working stations, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 94, 509, 10.1007/s00170-017-0846-4 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Alshawi, 2004, Integrating diverse ERP systems: a case study, J. Enterp. Inf. Manage., 17, 454, 10.1108/17410390410566742 · DOI
  58. Rashid, 2017, Enterprise systems’ life cycle in pursuit of resilient smart factory for emerging aircraft industry: a synthesis of Critical Success Factors’(CSFs), theory, knowledge gaps, and implications, Enterp. Inf. Syst., 39, 1
  59. Syberfeldt, 2017, Augmented reality smart glasses in the smart factory: product evaluation guidelines and review of available products, IEEE Access, 5, 9118, 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2703952 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Angeles, 2014, Using the technology-organization-environment framework for analyzing nike's considered index green initiative, a decision support system-driven system, J. Manage. Sustain., 4, 96
  61. Premkumar, 2003, A meta-analysis of research on information technology implementation in small business, J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer., 13, 91, 10.1207/S15327744JOCE1302_2 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Oliveira, 2011, Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval., 14, 110
  63. Fornell, 1981, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, J. Mark. Res., 18, 39, 10.1177/002224378101800104 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 458

Metadata

Authors
Masood, T., & Egger, J.
Venue
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
58
Pages
181-195
ISSN
0736-5845 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.rcim.2019.02.003
OpenAlex
W2921205582
Cited by
458
References
10
FWCI
26.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Funders
University of Cambridge

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Augmented reality in support of Industry 4.0—Implementation challenges and success factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.02.003
The paper
Masood, T., & Egger, J. (2019). Augmented reality in support of Industry 4.0—Implementation challenges and success factors. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.02.003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.