The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet; none of the 14 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies
Open accessAbstract
The usage of AI-empowered Industrial Robots (InRos) is booming in the Auto Component Manufacturing Companies (ACMCs) across the globe. Based on a model leveraging the Technology, Organisation, and Environment (TOE) framework, this work examines the adoption of InRos in ACMCs in the context of an emerging economy. This research scrutinises the adoption intention and potential use of InRos in ACMCs through a survey of 460 senior managers and owners of ACMCs in India. The findings indicate that perceived compatibility, external pressure, perceived benefits and support from vendors are critical predictors of InRos adoption intention. Interestingly, the study also reveals that IT infrastructure and government support do not influence InRos adoption intention. Furthermore, the analysis suggests that perceived cost issues negatively moderate the relationship between the adoption intention and potential use of InRos in ACMCs. This study offers a theoretical contribution as it deploys the traditional TOE framework and discovers counter-intuitively that IT resources are not a major driver of technology adoption: as such, it suggests that a more comprehensive framework than the traditional RBV should be adopted. The work provides managerial recommendations for managers, shedding light on the antecedents of adoption intention and potential use of InRos at ACMCs in a country where the adoption of InRos is in a nascent stage.
Checked 2026-10-10 · 2 references not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper uses a TOE-based model to examine adoption intention and potential use of AI-empowered industrial robots (InRos) among Indian auto component manufacturing companies (ACMCs). It finds perceived compatibility, perceived benefits, external pressure, and vendor support predict adoption intention, while IT infrastructure and government support do not, and perceived cost issues negatively moderate the intention-to-use relationship.
Key findings
- In a survey of 460 valid ACMC respondents, perceived compatibility (β=0.195, p<0.05), perceived benefits (β=0.380, p<0.01), external pressure (β=0.244, p<0.01), and support from vendors (β=0.108, p<0.05) significantly predicted InRos adoption intention.
- IT infrastructure (β=0.284, n.s.) and government support (β=0.273, n.s.) did not significantly influence adoption intention.
- Adoption intention predicted potential use of InRos (β=0.348, p<0.01), but perceived cost issues negatively moderated that relationship (ADN × COI → PTU, β=-0.105, p<0.01).
- The model explained 68.9% of variance in adoption intention (R²=.689) and 62.2% of variance in potential use (R²=.622).
Methods
- Quantitative survey design using the Technology, Organisation, and Environment (TOE) framework, extended with resource-based view considerations, to test eight hypotheses about InRos adoption intention and potential use.
- Data came from ACMCs in Indian automobile hubs (Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and the National Capital Region); 460 questionnaires were suitable for analysis out of 720, with a 63.8% response rate, and data collection took 14 months.
- Measures were adapted from prior TOE/innovation-adoption literature, pretested with 30 managers and piloted with 110 respondents; analysis used PLS-SEM with SmartPLS 2.0, plus tests for non-response bias (p=0.36), common method bias (single factor 28.62%), and endogeneity.
Limitations
- Stated: the empirical setting is India, so implications mainly relate to that emerging economy, and InRos adoption drivers may vary across geographic regions or countries; the model could be enriched with constructs such as anthropomorphism, trust, organisational fit, security, perceived values, and control variables such as firm size and industry type; future work should examine other sectors, service contexts, assimilation/implementation/actual usage, and dynamic capabilities.
- Evident from the text: the study relies on cross-sectional, self-report survey data from managers/owners in Indian ACMCs already using some advanced technology, which limits causal inference and may restrict generalisability beyond this sample and context.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
17 Own result · 13 Not checked yet · 11 Own method · 6 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings indicate that perceived compatibility, external pressure, perceived benefits and support from vendors are critical predictors of InRos adoption intention.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“GSP (β= 0.273, n.s.) was found to be non-significant towards ADN of InRos”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Contrarily to the expected results, government support (GSP) was not found to be statistically significant towards ADN of InRos in ACMCs”
- Also stated in: § Managerial Implications · plain
“The study also revealed that IT infrastructure and government support do not influence InRos adoption intention.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The high explanatory power of the proposed validated model with independent variables explaining InRos ADN of 68.9% (R 2 =.689) and PTU of 62.2% (R 2 =.622) represents a valuable contribution to the existing body of InRos literature.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Theoretical implications
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the analysis suggests that perceived cost issues negatively moderate the relationship between the adoption intention and potential use of InRos in ACMCs.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the study also reveals that IT infrastructure and government support do not influence InRos adoption intention.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings indicate that perceived compatibility, external pressure, perceived benefits and support from vendors are critical predictors of InRos adoption intention.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“EPR (β=0.244,p<0.01) is strongly and positively influencing the ADN”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“External pressure influences the InRos adoption which is in line with present research”
- Also stated in: § Managerial Implications · plain
“The findings of this work confirm that perceived compatibility, perceived benefits, external pressure, support from vendors are significant predictors of InRos adoption intention.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Results
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SPV (β=0.108,p<0.05) influences positively the ADN: this finding contradicts the study of mobile marketing adoption study”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Hence, SPV influences the InRos adoption by ACMCs.”
- Also stated in: § Managerial Implications · boosted
“The findings of this work confirm that perceived compatibility, perceived benefits, external pressure, support from vendors are significant predictors of InRos adoption intention.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Results
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also found that the relationship between ADN and PTU is moderated by COI (β=-0.105,p<0.01) and COI negatively influences the relationship of ADN and PTU.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“However, there are perceived cost issues that moderate the relationship between the ADN and PTU significantly.”
- Also stated in: § Managerial Implications · plain
“Furthermore, it was found that perceived cost issues negatively moderate the relationship between the adoption intention and potential use of InRos.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings indicate that perceived compatibility, external pressure, perceived benefits and support from vendors are critical predictors of InRos adoption intention.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 13
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Cronbach's alpha was utilised to check the internal consistency and reliability.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Research Instrument Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In India, the adoption of technologies such as AI in general and AI-empowered InRos, are still in the nascent stage (ACMA 2019).”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites ACMA 2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The validity of the constructs and reliability of the scale (Fornell and Larcker 1981) was verified for all the constructs.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Research Instrument Design
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fornell and Larcker 1981
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The InRos adoption in ACMCs is a complex process and an organisational perspective needs to be taken (Müller-abdelrazeq et al. 2019;Turja and Oksanen 2019)”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Müller-abdelrazeq et al. 2019
- Not checked yetcites Turja and Oksanen 2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On completion of the survey, a total of 460 questionnaires were suitable for data analysis out of 720 questionnaires with a response rate of 63.8%.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Sampling and Data Collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, TOE is appropriate to understand the adoption of innovative solutions embedding a user interface combined with hardware and software, such as InRos.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So far, no studies have developed an adoption model of InRos by leveraging an organisational perspective.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“InRos require unique and customized programming due to the features that the products of the ACMCs need to display and are utilised for various production processes such as assembling, painting, welding, packaging, testing and inspection of production (Graetz and Michaels 2018).”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Graetz and Michaels 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The largest construct in this model was identified and we derived the right sample size as being ten times the number of items considered.Therefore, 50 is the required sample size for this research.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Sampling and Data Collection
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gefen et al. 2000
plainn = 50- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There are many benefits pertaining to the adoption of InRos such as improved production, improved sales revenue, reduced manpower cost, accurate and defect-free products, and higher likelihood to achieve a sustained competitive advantage for ACMCs active in the market (Soffar 2019).”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soffar 2019
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The TOE does not provide by itself the factors useful to analyse the problem at hand, and it categorizes the factors into the respective constructs where the adoption of the technology actually happens (Puklavec, Oliveira, and Popovič 2018).”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Theoretical implications
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Puklavec, Oliveira, and Popovič 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The total number of complete responses were 460.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Non-response Bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The random sampling method was used to collect the data from 480 ACMCs from the corresponding automobile hubs.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Sampling and Data Collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on Table 2, CR values confirm the high level of reliability and internal consistency of all the constructs as the outer loading for all the items were higher than the minimum beginning value of 0.6.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Measurement model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The face validity was confirmed by considering and incorporating the suggestions of the subject matter experts and subsequently, the pre-test questionnaire was prepared.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Research Instrument Design
plainn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the proposed model is empirically validated.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the drivers of adoption of InRos may vary across different geographic regions or counties.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Limitations and Further Research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, as the empirical setting is a specific country (i.e., India), the implications of this work are mainly related to the observed emerging economy.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Limitations and Further Research
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“InRos is an advanced technology that can be utilised for manufacturing in ACMCs.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Managerial Implications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Building on TOE, the proposed research model helps to understand how TOE related constructs influence the adoption intention and potential use of InRos in ACMCs.”
§ Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies > Theoretical implications
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Different environmental settings and cultural contexts might affect differently the drivers and outcomes of InRos adoption.
“However, different environmental settings and cultural contexts might affect differently the drivers and outcomes of InRos adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI-empowered Industrial Robots' adoption is necessary for companies to be competitive in the marketplace.
“AI-empowered Industrial Robots' adoption is necessary for companies to be competitive in the marketplace.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are barely a few multinational ACMCs who could afford the use of AI empowered InRos for manufacturing.
“There are barely a few multinational ACMCs who could afford the use of AI empowered InRos for manufacturing.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The majority of research on advanced industrial manufacturing technologies such as InRos is focused on developed countries in the West rather than emerging economies such as India.
“the majority of the research related to advanced industrial manufacturing technologies such as InRos is focused on developed countries in the West rather than emerging economies such as India.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Different environmental settings and cultural contexts may generate different results.
“However, different environmental settings and cultural contexts may generate different results.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most ACMCs are not aware of government schemes and government taxation has created a slowdown in the automation industry.
“GSP is not a signficant contributor as most of the ACMCs are not aware of the government schemes and even government taxation has created slowdown in the automation industry.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The increased rate of Goods and Services Tax imposed by the Government of India and the automobile market slowdown is a major challenge for ACMCs.
“Currently, the increased rate of Goods and Services Tax (GST) imposed by Government of India (GoI) and the automobile market slowdown is a major challenge for ACMCs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
InRos is a new technology in India, and there is not much skilled manpower available in ACMCs.
“InRos is a new technology in India; hence, there is not much skilled manpower available in the ACMCs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
External pressure is faced by ACMCs due to the globalization of the Indian automobile sector.
“External pressure is faced by the ACMCs due to the globalization of the Indian automobile sector.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In India, many global customers exist and they expect the usage of advanced technology in manufacturing for accurate and fast production.
“In India, many global customers exist and they expect the usage of advanced technology in manufacturing for accurate and fast production.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ACMCs face pressure not just from competitors but also from customers' demand for quick delivery of auto components and products.
“ACMCs face pressure not just from the competitors but also from customers' demand for quick delivery of the auto components and products.”
The paper relies on this without support.
InRos vendors are strongly marketing InRos to ACMCs.
“In this technology-driven manufacturing environment, InRos vendors are strongly marketing InRos to ACMCs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Managers feel that training and continuous support from InRos vendors are required for better adoption of InRos.
“Managers feel that training and continuous support from InRos vendors are required for better adoption of InRos.”
The paper relies on this without support.
InRos boost productivity by automation of various activities in the manufacturing process.
“InRos boost the productivity by automation of various activities in the manufacturing process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
InRos improves return on investment.
“It also improves the return on investment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
InRos is an innovative and complex technology, and ACMCs require assistance from vendors.
“InRos is an innovative and complex technology and ACMCs require assistance from vendors.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Despite the potential benefits of AI-powered HRM practices, the adoption of AI in the Indian pharmaceutical sector is still at a nascent stage (Pillai et al., 2022).”
From Exploring the antecedents of AI adoption for effective HRM practices in the Indian pharmaceutical sector (2023) · cites this paper as Pillai et al., 2022
In the citing paper
“Recruiters used to perform repetitive tasks manually, but AI would make some of these tasks obsolete (Pillai et al., 2022).”
From Exploring the antecedents of AI adoption for effective HRM practices in the Indian pharmaceutical sector (2023) · cites this paper as Pillai et al., 2022
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
A resource‐based view of the firm
Wernerfelt, B. (1984) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250050207 · Cited by 25,635
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Pls-Sem: indeed a silver bullet
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011) · Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202 · Cited by 21,631
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research
F. Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-10-2013-0128 · Cited by 11,728
The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view
Peteraf, M. A. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250140303 · Cited by 10,743
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- 10.1108/bl12-2016-0044 · DOI
- Baker J., 2011, Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society
- 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020 · DOI
- Depietro R., 1990, The Processes of Technological Innovation, 199, 151
- 10.17705/100407 · DOI
- 10.1162/rest · DOI
- Ivanov Stanislav, 2018, Revista Turismo & Desenvolvimento, 1, 1501
- Keen P. G. W., 1991, Shaping the Future
- 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119752 · DOI
- Nunnally J. C., 1978, Psychometric Theory
- Penrose E. T., 1958, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm
- 10.1108/jbim-06-2016-0122 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Elia, S., Giuffrida, M., Mariani, M. M., & Bresciani, S. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.010 · Cited by 514
Self-citationThe role of artificial intelligence in supply chain management: mapping the territory
Sharma, R., Shishodia, A., Gunasekaran, A., Min, H., & Munim, Z. H. (2022) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2022.2029611 · Cited by 446
Cheng, H., Jia, R., Li, D., & Li, H. (2019) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.33.2.71 · Cited by 405
Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Vilkas, M., Grybauskas, A., & Amran, A. (2022) · Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · doi:10.1108/jmtm-12-2021-0505 · Cited by 396
A framework for AI-powered service innovation capability: Review and agenda for future research
Akter, S., Hossain, M. A., Sajib, S., Sultana, S., Rahman, M., Vrontis, D., & McCarthy, G. (2023) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102768 · Cited by 336
Metadata
- Authors
- Pillai, R., Sivathanu, B., Mariani, M., Rana, N. P., Yang, B., & Dwivedi, Y. K.
- Affiliations
- Department of Management, Pune Institute of Business Management, Pune, India
- Sri Balaji University, Pune (IN)
- University of Reading (GB)
- University of Bradford (GB)
- Chongqing Technology and Business University (CN)
- Swansea University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Rana, Nripendra P.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Production Planning & Control
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-02-18
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 1517-1533
- ISSN
- 0953-7287 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5871
- OpenAlex
- W3093090100
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 116
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15
- FWCI
- 23.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Production Planning & Control (publishedVersion)
- CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
- Bradford Scholars (University of Bradford) (submittedVersion)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Digital Transformation in Industry
- Keywords
- technology adoption, adoption intention, technology-organization-environment framework, perceived compatibility, external pressure, perceived benefits, vendor support, perceived cost, IT infrastructure, government support, emerging economy, India
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
