https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4007-0508
Figures
Abstract
Purpose
There is rising interest in Industry 4.0 as a factor in the competitiveness of the organization. Although many companies are aware of the importance of Industry 4.0, the development of such initiatives in Colombia is slow. Consequently, this research investigates the impact of additive technologies as part of the Industry 4.0 concept on operational effectiveness and, therefore, the competitiveness of the organization and tries to establish the factors that hinder the adequate implementation of such new, innovative technologies.
Design/Methodology/Approach
Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the antecedents and outcomes of operational effectiveness. To this end, 946 usable questionnaires were collected from managers and personnel from Colombian organizations.
Findings
Initial findings show that management is aware of Industry 4.0 concepts and implements strategies for such initiatives. Nevertheless, neither process innovation nor additive technologies have a significant impact on operational effectiveness and therefore on the competitiveness of the organization.
Practical implications
The implementation of new innovative technologies requires the closure of the digital gap between urban and rural areas and between large and medium and small enterprises. Similarly, the concept of Industry 4.0 as a new, innovative manufacturing concept requires a transversal implementation to increase the competitiveness of the organization.
Originality/Value
The value of this paper lies in discussing the current technological and human capabilities and strategies that Colombian organizations, as an example of a developing nation, should improve to leverage the benefits of Industry 4.0 to remain competitive. The results are probably generalizable to other regions in developing countries throughout the world.
Citation: Tegethoff T, Santa R, Cayón E, Scavarda A (2023) Strategy and additive technologies as the catalyst for outsourcing, process innovation and operational effectiveness. PLoS ONE 18(2): e0282366. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282366
Editor: Alessandro Margherita, University of Salento, ITALY
Received: May 29, 2022; Accepted: February 13, 2023; Published: February 27, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Tegethoff et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are available at: https://doi.org/10.57130/CESA.4809.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
International trade has a significant impact on the well-being of any society [1]. Consequently, it is necessary to enhance the competitiveness of the organization to survive in a constantly changing environment, thus adding to the well-being of the country and the society.
Germany, as a country relying heavily on international trade, decided to launch a country-wide initiative called Industrie 4.0 (Industry 4.0) in 2011. The main characteristic of the concept of Industry 4.0 is the individualization of the product according to the customers’ requirements, but also within a flexible large-scale production. This kind of strategy has been defined as differentiation and is one of two generic strategies that enhances the competitive advantage of any organization [2, 3]. The production processes involve the direct participation of all groups of interest (starting with the supplier and business partners) in the whole value chain and the supply chain. The production chain requires the real-time integration of all production resources, such as people, machines, systems, and logistics, and direct cooperation between all of them. As a consequence, intelligent networks should not only optimize one part of the process but the whole production process [4–6].
Nowadays, Industry 4.0 is a global concept applied to most industrial and financial sectors. Industry 4.0 comprises the themes of the internet of things (integrated connectivity of systems, services, and objects), cloud computing (huge capacity of storage and instant access to the data), autonomous robots (interconnected robots within the production process), big data (a large amount of data analyzed by automatic systems), internet of services (services available on demand), augmented reality (virtual elements integrated into reality), cyber-physical system and human-digital interfaces (integration of humans and machines), additive manufacturing/3D printing (additive manufacturing processes), smart factory (manufacturing on the internet of things and cyber-physical systems), and blockchain (a decentralized database with full traceability). Such innovative changes in the manufacturing processes also require innovative changes in the organizations’ processes and organizational strategy to enhance competitiveness and operational effectiveness [7–9]. It also changes the strategic view of the organization in their process of implementation and the interaction with suppliers and customers [10, 11].
The concept of Industry 4.0 is also recognized in Colombia. According to a survey from 2019 by the National Association of Businessmen of Colombia (ANDI), 88.2% of their members know what the 4th industrial revolution is, and 65,2% have already designed a strategy for digital transformation. Additionally, the geography and the lack of adequate infrastructure on roads and highways in Colombia should be an incentive for the implementation of decentralized manufacturing processes, such as additive manufacturing, combined with the internet and automated processes, which also enhances the sustainable competitiveness of organizations. Nevertheless, the results are not encouraging [12].
Considering the novelty of Industry 4.0 in the country, and the importance of competitiveness in the social, economic, and political development of the country, the research question for this study is:
“What are the factors from Industry 4.0, that promote the operational effectiveness of local organizations”
2. Literature review
2.1 Operational effectiveness
Porter [2] proposes 2 generic strategies, that organizations should embrace to generate competitive advantage—differentiation and cost leadership. Operational effectiveness is part of the cost leadership strategy as it comprises a more efficient use of the resources of the organization. Operational effectiveness considers the dimensions of cost, quality, flexibility, speed, and reliability [13, 14].
Cost: The main aspect of cost contemplates the reduction of inefficiencies and waste within the production process [15, 16]. The reduction of cost implies changes in technologies and processes to avoid unnecessary expenses and a cost-benefit analysis is required when implementing such changes or acquiring new technologies [17, 18]. Cost performance also refers to the relationship between the cost of the changes or new technologies compared to organizational objectives and achieving the best correlation [19, 20].
Quality: The main concept of quality can be described as giving the customer what they want and what they need [16]. Nevertheless, there are many definitions of quality based on objective reasons or subjective perception. Manufacturing-based quality centers on the objective defect rate of the product or service. The product-based definition of quality refers to the attributes or characteristics of the service or product. User-based quality refers to what extent the product or service fulfills the user´s requirements or satisfies customers’ needs. Value-based quality includes not only the user´s requirements but also the price. In this context, the concept includes an acceptable price for the products or services [21]. The definitions also include the concept of service methods, response time, post-sale service, delay time, guarantee time, delivery time, service consistency, repair quality, responsible attitude, and service facilities and locations [22]. Consequently, to satisfy the customer´s requirements, the organization requires a culture of quality to enhance competitiveness [23].
Agility: The concept of agility is intrinsically linked to speed and flexibility. Speed for an organization is the time required to respond to customers’ requirements or the time necessary to develop and deliver a new product or service [14, 24, 25]. Consequently, speed is the ability to perform any process or action by the organization in the shortest possible timeframe [26]. Flexibility is intrinsically linked to the concept of speed, as it includes not only the response time to the client´s requirements but also eventual short-term changes in such requirements [13, 27, 28]. Therefore, agility can be defined as a multidimensional aspect that includes the ability to anticipate, understand, and react to any market change and thus involves the capability to adapt and to take advantage of those market opportunities with innovative solutions. The responses are based on the magnitude of the changes (flexibility) and the rate of variety (speed) that the organization can generate. Agility is the combination of high rates of speed and high rates of flexibility [29, 30].
Reliability: The concept of reliability is a core principle in customer satisfaction. Within the manufacturing or service environment, any product or service should function according to the provider’s description, including the promised function and minimum usage timeframe [31–33]. A similar definition is given by Kuo and Zuo [34] who propose that reliability can be defined as the condition that the product will not fail in the specified time frame and works as designed initially. It is important to note that the literature states that reliability is either acceptable or not acceptable and does not use the terms “high” or “low” reliability [35]. Reliability can be defined as product reliability or as process reliability. The first is product-based and considers the customer´s perception. The latter considers whether the organizational processes perform as expected and specified within certain parameters and norms. To summarize, reliability is the prediction of the probability that something will perform as specified, under the specified conditions, for the specified period [35].
2.2 Strategy
The concept of strategy is widely discussed within the academic world. Mintzberg [36] integrates five definitions of strategy: strategy as a plan, strategy as a pattern, strategy about what, strategy as a position, and finally, strategy as a perspective. He proposes that strategy is a shared abstract concept within the minds of the members of the organization. Consequently, strategy cannot be determined by analyzing the thoughts of one individual, but by observing the same behavior or thinking of many coworkers. Thus, strategy is not only a notion of how to deal with competitors in the market. It also penetrates some of the most fundamental issues about organizations as instruments for collective perceptions and actions [36]. Araujo and Easton [37] took Mintzberg´s definition and have gone one step further in proposing that strategy (based on strategy as a pattern) is a set of several actions with a certain degree of consistency within a certain timeframe.
On the other hand, strategy is an organizational concept that cannot be mistaken for operational effectiveness. Both are necessary to enhance competitive advantage and better performance. Operational effectiveness includes performing similar activities better than competitors. Strategy, on the other hand, includes developing activities that are different from those of the competitors or performing the same activities, but differently [2]. The basis of an adequate strategy is implementing unique activities, that cannot be easily matched by competitors. The environment and context of the organization are the sources of such unique activities.
Consequently, considering strategy as a pattern and as performing unique activities, two generic strategies are proposed by Porter [38].
Cost Leadership: A cost leadership strategy is based on factors that provide a cost advantage, such as efficient technologies, economies of scale, adequate logistics, etc. Nevertheless, cost leadership alone will not help to achieve a higher competitive advantage. Differentiation is still important, as the customer must perceive the product to be as good as the products of the competitors. If the organization achieves both cost leadership and differentiation, it will perform better than its competitors.
Differentiation: The organization offers superior value to its customers. Several kinds of differentiation exist depending on the context and environment of the organization. To achieve superior performance, such differentiations should allow the organization to charge a higher price, gain a higher margin, or increase the market share.
Khalifa [39] proposes seven requirements for a successful strategy:
- Focus: The organization specializes only in one segment of the market. To achieve superior performance, the chosen clients must have particular requirements that cannot be fulfilled by other competitors.
- The main objective of any strategy is to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage. Consequently, organizations should be aware of the following directives, when defining their strategy.
- Aspirational: A strategy should not be easy to achieve, as competitors will be able to copy the strategy without effort.
- Power-creating: An adequate strategy changes the power within the organization. Areas with more resources gain power over areas where resources were withdrawn.
- Directional: On the external front, a strategy should shift the power from the competitors to their organization.
- Systemic: An efficient strategy should be understood by all members of the organization and give a clear indication of where to go and where not to go. Similarly, it is not possible to implement a strategy based on individual areas, but it requires a systemic and global view.
- Intentional: Finally, a strategy must be designed, planned, and executed. A strategy does not come out of anywhere.
With the introduction of Industry 4.0, the organizational strategy also requires an update. Industry 4.0 implies changes in the whole business model of the organization and therefore involves a change in the value proposition [40]. The adoption of Industry 4.0 allows the organization to enhance its strategy toward more efficiency, especially when the strategy takes into account the aspects of client servitization, design-to-cost, an adequate supply chain, and database integration and process changes [41]. Nevertheless, organizational strategy has to rely on existing resources, capabilities, and competencies. Therefore organizations relying heavily on cost and volume strategies, as well as those that rely on fast design processes and innovative process changes benefit from the implementation of Industry 4.0 initiatives [42].
Considering the arguments given and that adequate strategic decision enhances efficiency and operational effectiveness; we propose our first hypothesis:
- H1: Strategy has a positive impact on operational effectiveness.
2.3 Process innovation
Innovation is a key factor in fostering competitiveness [43–45]. Consequently, many organizations try to improve innovation practices by acquiring new technologies, designing new products, and/or implementing new practices and routines in their production processes. Nevertheless, many innovation initiatives fail due to different factors, such as firm-related, project-related, product-related, and market-related reasons [46].
Garcia-Quevedo et al. [47] also include financial constraints as a major reason for the failure of innovation projects. Therefore, practitioners and academics search for a formula to foster success in innovation projects. Initially, a definition of innovation has to be proposed. Such a definition is based on the author’s context and point of view, which includes social, economic, political, and cultural dimensions, among others. One of the definitions proposes that innovation is any activity of the organization to create new knowledge [48–50]. The OECD takes this definition and includes not only technological innovation but any changes that improve products, processes, and/or marketing approaches [43]. Other authors define innovation as creating competitive advantage and enhancing strategic adaptability [51, 52]. Kahn [53] defines innovation as an outcome, a process, and a mindset. From that point of view, innovation as an outcome defines what is achieved through innovation. A process includes the procedures and methods used to reach that output, and innovation as a mindset implies that every member of the organization should be aware of the benefits of innovation and foster an innovation culture.
The model developed by Tidd and Bessant [28] includes most of the findings from the literature and proposes four different dimensions of innovation: product innovation, process innovation, position innovation, and paradigm innovation. The authors postulated that paradigm innovation is the most difficult to achieve as it implies changes in the mindset of the members of the organization. On the other hand, process innovations play an equal or even more important role than product or position innovation in achieving competitive advantage. Doing something better than or different from the competitors can generate a clear competitive advantage [54, 55].
Creating something new or a radical change is not always required to be classified as innovation. Major changes require more effort and financial resources and imply bigger risks. Small changes or continuous improvement are considered innovations [53]. Similarly, Tidd and Bessant [28] classify the type of innovation, independently of its dimension, as radical or incremental. Both involve changes, but the factors of investment and risk differ substantially.
Process innovation involves changing actual production processes and methods, including how products and services are produced and delivered to the client, in search of more efficiency. Such changes could be decreased waste and cost, enhanced quality, enhanced production output, or faster processing. Generally, process innovation applies to internal areas of the organization [28, 53]. Although process innovation can be found more in mature industrial sectors and mature organizations, SMEs also require innovation in their processes to be competitive. Mature organizations try to reach more efficient ways to offer their product and services (rationalization, economies of scale, process innovation), meanwhile, new SMEs tend to be more innovative and develop new products and try to change paradigms [28, 56]. Consequently, SMEs improve process innovation through external acquisitions. Large organizations rely more on internal efforts to improve process innovation [57, 58]. Nevertheless, process innovation requires an efficient innovation and product development process in both kinds of organizations [53, 59].
Managing process innovation is not an easy task. A common vision of goals and team stability are critical factors. Additionally, adequate funding and challenging but not impossible deadlines are also significant aspects of successful process innovation initiatives. Another important feature is adequate storage and exchange of information [60, 61].
Given the previous arguments, strategy has a significant impact on how processes, structures, and routines are designed within an organization, and therefore on process innovation, we propose that:
- H2: Strategy has a significant and positive impact on process innovation.
According to Tidd and Bessant [28], process innovation shifts around cost, quality, and similar factors that are parameters of operational effectiveness. Consequently, our next hypothesis proposes that
- H3: Process innovation has a positive and significant impact on operational effectiveness.
2.4 Additive technologies
Additive technologies are a novelty in production systems. The first patent was given in 1981, but only in 2000, with the imprint of the first kidney, did the golden age of 3D printing begin [62]. After the expiration of the patent in 2005, open-source projects have fostered the implementation of additive technologies even more, not only within the academic and engineering community but by organizations as an alternative production methodology. Different industrial sectors also benefit from additive technologies, such as automotive and machinery production, health care, and even the food sector. The development of different materials, such as multi-material shape memory polymer (4D printing), 3D printing molecules, 3D printing conductive materials, 3D printing bones, tissues, and organs, eco-friendly materials for 3D Printing, or carbon nanotubes, among others, boosted the development of new manufacturing processes [63–65]. It is equally important to stress that many materials are eco-friendly, such as polylactic acid (PLA)—made from fermented sugar and polymerized to PLA. Other elements are made from recycled materials, such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), which can be made from recycled plastic [66–69].
In 3D-printing technology, several layers are built up, based on a CAD program, thus creating a three-dimensional model. The benefits of this technology are widely known. 3D printing allows smaller or even single lots of products at an affordable cost. Also, more complex geometrical figures are possible without the increased cost when producing with traditional machinery. The lead times on production (an important factor in the supply chain), are much shorter than with traditional processes [70].
Another important advantage is the reduction of waste in the production process. As the products are created layer by layer, the waste is almost zero, an important factor in today´s environmental discussions. Additionally, with the actual pandemic, the factor of remote printing is becoming more important. The design and instruction can be easily sent over the internet and printed anywhere a printer exists [71].
One of the main disadvantages is the actual high cost of the printed item, which makes it difficult to produce at large scales. Nevertheless, this disadvantage could be transformed into an advantage as it allows the development of products with a limited scope of differentiation between them and therefore copes perfectly with the client’s expectations and requirements [72–74].
Being part of the Industry 4.0 implies also that a strategy for implementing such new technology with success in the organization exists. Management should be aware of the benefits, risks, and difficulties of implementing 3D printing and design an adequate strategy according to the organization’s requirements [75–77]. Consequently, the fourth hypothesis states that:
- H4: Strategy has a significant and positive impact on the implementation of additive technologies.
Similarly, as additive technologies are a novelty that is changing the organizational world and require adequate implementation and changes in existing processes [78, 79], we propose that:
- H5: Additive technologies have a significant and positive impact on process innovation.
Furthermore, one of the main goals in introducing additive technologies into the organization is to foster the efficiency of processes, reduce waste—and therefore cost, and speed up the response to clients’ requirements for different products. Last, but not least, additive technologies allow faster responses to market changes with adequately implemented technology. Consequently, the sixth hypothesis states that:
- H6: Additive technologies have a significant and positive impact on operational effectiveness.
2.5 Outsourcing
With the tendency to concentrate on the core activities of the organization, outsourcing strategy emerges as an alternative to improve production. Nevertheless, knowing what the core activities of the organization are, has a significant impact on the design of the organizational strategy. Outsourcing refers to the transfer of activities to external parties. Although both internal and external activities create value for the client, sometimes it is more efficient for the organization to externalize some non-core activities to parties who can provide the required services faster and cheaper [80–82].
Initially, most of the outsourcing practices affected third-party logistics (3PL) as a strategy to reduce cost and enhance agility [83, 84]. Nevertheless, with globalization, outsourcing has become an alternative for multiple areas of the organization. Customer services, accounting, taxes, programming, human resources, or providing part of a product are only a few of the organizational activities that are candidates for outsourcing [85, 86].
The main goal of outsourcing any activity of the organization is to reduce the cost to achieve a competitive advantage [87, 88]. Other reasons to choose to outsource are changes in organizational strategy, more efficient management of the supply chain, enhancement of the quality of the products, incrementing the strength of external networks, business process-reengineering, capital investment reduction, flexibility enhancement, or knowledge exchange [86, 89–91].
Outsourcing is a strategic decision made by the management, with its known uncertainties [89, 92]. It is expected that the strategic decisions related to technological factors that boost outsourcing processes will improve the sustainable competitive advantage [91, 93, 94]. Consequently, our seventh and eighth hypotheses state that:
- H7: Strategy has a positive and significant impact on outsourcing.
- H8: Outsourcing has a positive and significant impact on operational effectiveness.
Nevertheless, outsourcing activities implies changes in the processes of the organization. As different services are now provided by external parties, the actual processes need to be changed and coordination efforts will increase. It is expected that the cost-saving (or other benefits) compensates for the increase in coordination costs [95–97]. Process innovation means changes in existing practices and the consequences of those enhancements lead to outsourcing certain activities. Consequently, the outsourcing activities also depend on process changes planned by the organization [98, 99]. Therefore, our ninth hypothesis states that:
- H9: Process innovation has a positive and significant impact on outsourcing activities.
Finally, when clients want to make small changes to existing products, or when a part of a machine has broken and the replacement is no longer available, 3D printing becomes the appropriate solution. The production of unique replacements is not profitable for the manufacturer and, consequently, a completely new service, the 3D printing industry, emerged as a solution [100]. Organizations can now abstain from having a large inventory for certain product parts and have instead an inventory of digital product designs, ready to be printed when required. As owning a 3D printer is not always cost-efficient, the files with the item specifications can be easily sent through the internet to an external service provider, thus taking advantage of the outsourced activity [101]. Although organizations recognize the benefits of 3D printing, reasons such as high printer acquisition cost, lack of experience with such a new technology, the technical limitations of a printer (materials, dimensions), or maintenance cost, foster the use of external third parties [100–102]. Therefore, our tenth and last hypothesis state:
- H10: Additive technologies have a significant and positive impact on outsourcing.
Fig 1 shows the theoretical model with the hypothesis.
Source: By the authors.
3. Methodology
This research is a confirmatory study, as the aim is to sustain pre-specified relationships [103] borrowed from the models of Tidd and Bessant [28], Santa et al. [14], and Ferrer et al. [104]. A self-administered questionnaire was developed according to the guidelines established by Hair et al. [105] and sent to the participants. The survey consisted of a first section on the demographics, followed by questions related to the conceptualized set of variables necessary to build the desired model. The questionnaire uses a five-point-Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Of 994 responses, 946 were considered usable (95%) and 48 were discarded (due to missing or inconsistent data). To test the hypotheses, descriptive and inferential statistical analysis was used to analyze the collected data. Figs 2 and 3 show the demographic data of the respondents of the survey.
Source: By the authors 1.
Source: By the authors.
It is important to stress that the respondents of large organizations accounted for 64% of all answers. Large organizations are more prompt to use new and innovative technologies, such as additive technologies, and leverage the associated benefits [106–108].
The average mean values of the statements’ ratings were used to build the variables that made up the structural equation model. This methodology was chosen as it fits the requirements of this research and allows the analysis of latent variables and their relationships and the required sample is met by the collected data [109].
Both SPSS and Amos were used to undertake the multivariant analysis. Factor loadings were estimated, the items loaded on only one construct (i.e., no cross-loading) and latent constructs were correlated. The internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and the items-to-total correlation. All values were above 0.7, the cut-off level for basic research,as shown in Table 1 [110, 111].
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to measure the relationships between observed and continuous latent variables, and to determine the model’s overall fit [105, 112, 113].
The model shows 561 distinct sample moments with 82 distinct parameters to be estimated. The Chi-square equals 1832.757 with 479 degrees of freedom. The value of CMIN/DF of 3.83 and a 0.000 probability level suggested that the model has a good fit. Wheaton et al. [114] suggested a ratio of five or less as acceptable, other authors recommend values between 2 and 5 [112, 115]. The values of CFI (0.953), NFI (0.938), RFI (0.931), IFI (0.953) and TLI (0.948) above 0.9 support the model [115–118]. The value of the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.055 was good, close to 0.05 [116]. Consequently, the baseline comparison indices suggest that the hypothesized model fits the observed variance-covariance matrix well relative to the null or independence model (Tables 2 and 3).
4. Results
The findings from SEM shown in Fig 4 and Table 4 show a strong relationship between strategy and process innovation (β = 0.62, p < 0.001), and between additive technologies and strategy (β = 0.33, p < 0.001). The results also show a medium relationship between process innovation and outsourcing (β = 0.43), p < 0.001), additive technologies and outsourcing (β = 0.36, p < 0.001), strategy and operational effectiveness (β = 0.34, p < 0.001), process innovation and operational effectiveness (β = 0.27, p < 0.001), thus not rejecting Hypothesis 1, 2,3, 4, 9, and 10. Between additive technologies and operational effectiveness (β = 0.14, p < 0.001), process innovation and additive technologies (β = 0.27, p < 0.001), and between outsourcing and operational effectiveness (β = 0.18, p < 0.001) there is only a low relationship, but nevertheless, hypothesis 5, 6 and 8 were not rejected. The relationship between strategy and outsourcing was not supported (H7).
Source: By the authors.
5. Discussion
The results of this study reveal that Colombian organizations are not leveraging the benefits of Industry 4.0, such as process innovation and additive technologies. Colombia has high potential because one of the main benefits of Industry 4.0 is the decentralized manufacturing and personalization of production, but other factors prevent successful Industry 4.0 initiatives. The main factor seems to be the digital gap. Access to digital services is very different between urban and rural areas. Urban areas have a better quality of digital services at a lower cost. Additionally, access for small and medium enterprises is far more difficult and costly than for large organizations [12]. Consequently, small and medium organizations not only have higher costs than large companies but also lose competitiveness against the large local competitors and foreign organizations.
Another issue seems to be the general lack of trust. Colombia is a country with a low level of trust between government, citizens, and organizations [119–121]. In particular, the lack of trust between the organization and contractors outside the organization constitutes an obstacle to leveraging benefits from outsourcing activities [122]. The mistrust between the different components of society not only affects the implementation of technological innovations but also prevents the collaboration between them and generates inefficiencies in the use of resources. That includes the exchange of information and the awareness of the benefits of adequate implementation of Industry 4.0 [12, 123–125].
Another factor of lesser importance is the lack of skills in digital business and managerial knowledge of Colombian workers. Although in Colombia there are many high-ranked and internationally accredited educational institutions, more focused development of human resources in digital capabilities and competencies is required [12, 126, 127].
Considering the hindering factors, it is not surprising that additive technologies and process innovation only add a very low level to organizational performance. Although the management is aware of the benefits of Industry 4.0 and designs strategies to implement such initiatives, it is not enough. The fact that the strategies do not have an impact on outsourcing confirms the view of mistrust between the actors, even though this study also shows that changes in processes and implementing additive technologies have an impact on outsourcing activities. Surprisingly, it seems that the outsourcing of activities has a small, but measurable effect on operational effectiveness. We suggest that such effects are consequent to some personal relationship, and therefore a greater amount of trust, between the outsourcing organization and the executant of the outsourced activities and not as a result of a planned organizational strategy.
6. Conclusions
As the results of this research show that Colombian organizations are not fully exploiting the possibilities of the Industry 4.0 initiatives, the government, academia, and organizations should invest in initiatives that create trust, enhance digital skills, and close the digital gap.
Academia should implement courses in digital knowledge, such as big data, cloud computing, etc. It also should encourage teamwork and the exchange of information between the students. Such initiatives should help to understand the concept of Industry 4.0 and the importance of teamwork in implementing technological innovations and the benefits of collaboration. Additionally, such training should enhance the transversal exchange of knowledge between different faculties, as Industry 4.0 requires not only technical skills but also managerial, social, and methodological competencies.
The government should enhance digital infrastructure and promote trust. The acceptance of new technologies depends on such initiatives. The government should also encourage educational institutions to develop programs in digital education starting from primary school and encourage studies in a digital career. Projects that generate trust between the different aspects are urgently required, not only to support the acceptance of technological initiatives, such as e-government but also to facilitate the interaction between the different members of Colombian society.
Organizations should foster the interaction between their workforce, to enhance collaboration and information exchange, not only internally, but also with external actors. Similarly, digital education should be one of the main topics in backing advanced studies of their workforce and the support of educational institutions on all levels in digital education is vital.
Without such initiatives, the implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept will be very slow and might even come to a halt. The consequences are a decrease in competitiveness with the consequent slower advancement of social, political, and economic dimensions in society.
7. Limitations and further research
This article has several limitations. First, the study used a convenience sample, with respondents chosen based on their operations and practices, knowledge, experience, expertise, and tenure in the management and implementation of Industry 4.0 activities. Second, the sample size is limited when compared to other studies in industrialized countries. It should also be noted that about half of Colombia’s labor force is informal, and the study is based on responses from members of formal organizations. Additionally, Colombia is also a country with a high level of mistrust. Given these considerations, generalizability across all industrial sectors appears to be a stretch. Nonetheless, the findings reveal information that justifies a broader, quantitative study. Further research might look at why Colombia is one of the most distrusted countries in the world and what can be done to change it.
References
- 1. Carmel SM. Globalisation, security, and economic wellbeing. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs. 2011;3(4):109–17.
- 2. Porter M. What is strategy. Harvard Business Review. 1996;74(6):61–78.
- 3. Porter M. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Harvard Business Review. 1990;68(2):73–93.
- 4. Poszytek P. The Landscape of Scientific Discussions on the Competencies 4.0 Concept in the Context of the 4th Industrial Revolution—A Bibliometric Review. Sustainability. 2021;13(12):6709.
- 5.
Bartodziej CJ. The concept Industry 4.0. In: Bartodziej CJ, editor. The Concept Industry 40: An Empirical Analysis of Technologies and Applications in Production Logistics. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2017. p. 27–50.
- 6. Bassi L, editor Industry 4.0: Hope, hype or revolution? 2017 IEEE 3rd International Forum on Research and Technologies for Society and Industry (RTSI); 2017 11–13 Sept. 2017.
- 7. Müller JM, Däschle S. Business Model Innovation of Industry 4.0 Solution Providers Towards Customer Process Innovation. Processes. 2018;6(12).
- 8. De Giovanni P, Cariola A. Process innovation through industry 4.0 technologies, lean practices and green supply chains. Research in Transportation Economics. 2020:100869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100869.
- 9. Agrawal A, Schaefer S, Funke T. Incorporating Industry 4.0 in corporate strategy. Analyzing the impacts of Industry 40 in modern business environments: IGI global; 2018. p. 161–76.
- 10. Lalic B, Todorovic T, Cvetkovic N, Tasic N, Marjanovic U, editors. Strategic Outsourcing of SMEs in the Context of Industry 4.0: Evidence from Serbia. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on the Industry 40 Model for Advanced Manufacturing; 2018; Cham: Springer International Publishing.
- 11. Culot G, Orzes G, Sartor M. Integration and Scale in the Context of Industry 4.0: The Evolving Shapes of Manufacturing Value Chains. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 2019;47(1):45–51.
- 12. Guzman Mora LA. Industry 4.0 in developing countries. The case of Colombia: Politecnico di Torino; 2019.
- 13.
Hill T. Operations management. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.
- 14. Santa R, Hyland P, Ferrer M. Technological innovation and operational effectiveness: their role in achieving performance improvements. Production Planning & Control. 2014;25(12):969–79.
- 15. Löthgren M, Zethraeus N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Economics. 2000;9(7):623–30. pmid:11103928
- 16.
Russell RS, Taylor BW. Operations management—Quality and competitiveness in a global environment. London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2008.
- 17. Posner Richard A. Cost‐Benefit Analysis: Definition, Justification, and Comment on Conference Papers. The Journal of Legal Studies. 2000;29(S2):1153–77.
- 18. Yang C-C. Improving the definition and quantification of quality costs. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2008;19(3):175–91.
- 19. Kamble SS, Gunasekaran A, Ghadge A, Raut R. A performance measurement system for industry 4.0 enabled smart manufacturing system in SMMEs- A review and empirical investigation. International Journal of Production Economics. 2020;229:107853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107853.
- 20. Bisbe J, Otley D. The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 2004;29(8):709–37.
- 21. Seawright KW, Young ST. A Quality Definition Continuum. INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics. 1996;26(3):107–13.
- 22. Yang JC. What is Quality. Quality Control Journal. 2011;36(8):52–6.
- 23. Durana P, Kral P, Stehel V, Lazaroiu G, Sroka W. Quality Culture of Manufacturing Enterprises: A Possible Way to Adaptation to Industry 4.0. Social Sciences. 2019;8(4):1–25.
- 24. Bauza MB, Tenboer J, Li M, Lisovich A, Zhou J, Pratt D, et al. Realization of Industry 4.0 with high speed CT in high volume production. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology. 2018;22:121–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2018.04.001.
- 25. Phillips DT, Jeong KY. Operational efficiency and effectiveness measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 2001;21(11):1404–16.
- 26. Dahmardeh N, Banihashemi SA. Organizational agility and agile manufacturing. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science. 2010;27(1):3–12.
- 27. de Weerd-Nederhof PC, Visscher K, Altena J, Fisscher OAM. Operational effectiveness and strategic flexibility: scales for performance assessment of new product development systems. International journal of technology management. 2008;44(3–4):354–72.
- 28. Tidd J, Bessant JR. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change: Wiley; 2020.
- 29. Sampath G, Krishnamoorthy B. Is strategic agility the new Holy Grail? Exploring the strategic agility construct. International Journal of Business Excellence. 2017;13(2):160–80.
- 30.
Singh J, Sharma G, Hill J, Schnackenberg A, editors. Organizational agility: What it is, what it is not, and why it matters2013: Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510.
- 31. Zhang CW, Pan R, Goh TN. Reliability assessment of high-Quality new products with data scarcity. International Journal of Production Research. 2021;59(14):4175–87.
- 32. Rooney JP, editor Customer satisfaction. Proceedings of Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS); 1994: IEEE.
- 33. Boedigheimer RA, Kapur KC. Customer-driven reliability models for multistate coherent systems. IEEE Transactions on Reliability. 1994;43(1):46–50.
- 34.
Kuo W, Zuo M. Optimal Reliability Modeling: Principles and application. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
- 35. Blank R. The Basics of Reliability: CRC Press; 2019.
- 36. Mintzberg H. The Strategy Concept I: Five Ps for Strategy. California Management Review. 1987;30(1):11–24.
- 37. Araujo L, Easton G. Strategy: Where is the Pattern? Organization. 1996;3(3):361–83.
- 38.
Porter M. Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press; 1998.
- 39. Khalifa AS. Strategy, nonstrategy and no strategy. Journal of Strategy and Management. 2021;14(1):35–49.
- 40.
Akdil KY, Ustundag A, Cevikcan E. Maturity and Readiness Model for Industry 4.0 Strategy. In: Ustundag A, Cevikcan E, editors. Industry 40: Managing The Digital Transformation. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 61–94.
- 41. Chiarini A, Belvedere V, Grando A. Industry 4.0 strategies and technological developments. An exploratory research from Italian manufacturing companies. Production Planning & Control. 2020;31(16):1385–98.
- 42. Aalbers RH, McCarthy K, Huisman M, Roettger J. Moving motives: How past and present strategy influence the market. Plos one. 2021;16(12):e0259660. pmid:34879073
- 43.
OECD, Eurostat. Oslo Manual 20182018.
- 44. Sener S, Delican D. The causal relationship between innovation, competitiveness and foreign trade in developed and developing countries. Procedia Computer Science. 2019;158:533–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.085.
- 45. Feldmann PR, Jacomossi RR, Barrichello A, Morano RS. The relationship between innovation and global competitiveness: The mediating role of management practices evaluated by structural equation modeling. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios. 2019;21:195–212.
- 46. van der Panne G, van Beers C, Kleinknecht A. Success and Failure of Innovation: A Literature Review. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2003;07(03):309–38.
- 47. García-Quevedo J, Segarra-Blasco A, Teruel M. Financial constraints and the failure of innovation projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2018;127:127–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.029.
- 48. Evangelista R, Vezzani A. The economic impact of technological and organizational innovations. A firm-level analysis. Research Policy. 2010;39(10):1253–63.
- 49. Benamati J, Fuller MA, Serva MA, Baroudi J. Clarifying the Integration of trust and TAM in E-commerce environments: Implications for systems design and management. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management. 2010;57(3):380–93.
- 50. Tacchella A, Napoletano A, Pietronero L. The language of innovation. PloS one. 2020;15(4):e0230107. pmid:32352986
- 51. Verhaeghe A, Kfir R. Managing innovation in a knowledge intensive technology organisation (KITO). R&D Management. 2002;32(5):409–17.
- 52. Eunni RV, Post JE, Berger PD. Adapt or adapt: lessons for strategy from the US telecoms industry. Journal of General Management. 2005;31(1):83–105.
- 53. Kahn KB. Understanding innovation. Business Horizons. 2018;61(3):453–60.
- 54.
Porter M. Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press; 2004.
- 55. Utterback J, Abernathy W. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. International Journal of Management Science. 1975;3(6):639–56.
- 56. Si Y, Liu W, Cao X. The effects of external knowledge source heterogeneity on enterprise process and product innovation performance. Plos one. 2020;15(6):e0234649. pmid:32530928
- 57. Hervas-Oliver J-L, Sempere-Ripoll F, Boronat-Moll C. Process innovation strategy in SMEs, organizational innovation and performance: a misleading debate? Small Business Economics. 2014;43(4):873–86.
- 58. Fritsch M, Meschede M. Product Innovation, Process Innovation, and Size. Review of Industrial Organization. 2001;19(3):335–50.
- 59. Peykani P, Namazi M, Mohammadi E. Bridging the knowledge gap between technology and business: An innovation strategy perspective. PloS one. 2022;17(4):e0266843. pmid:35421135
- 60. Bender KW, Cedeño JE, Cirone JF, Klaus KP, Leahey LC, Menyhert TD. Process Innovation: Case Studies of Critical Success Factors. Engineering Management Journal. 2000;12(4):17–24.
- 61. Gómez J, Salazar I, Vargas P. Sources of information as determinants of product and process innovation. PloS one. 2016;11(4):e0152743. pmid:27035456
- 62. Savini A, Savini GG, editors. A short history of 3D printing, a technological revolution just started. 2015 ICOHTEC/IEEE International History of High-Technologies and their Socio-Cultural Contexts Conference (HISTELCON); 2015 18–19 Aug. 2015.
- 63. Kamran M, Saxena A. A Comprehensive Study on 3D Printing Technology. MIT International Journal of Mechanical Engineering. 2016;6:63–9.
- 64. Garcia J, Yang Z, Mongrain R, Leask RL, Lachapelle K. 3D printing materials and their use in medical education: a review of current technology and trends for the future. BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning. 2018;4(1):27. pmid:29354281
- 65. Sachyani Keneth E, Kamyshny A, Totaro M, Beccai L, Magdassi S. 3D Printing Materials for Soft Robotics. Advanced Materials. 2021;33(19):2003387. pmid:33164255
- 66. Kreiger MA, Mulder ML, Glover AG, Pearce JM. Life cycle analysis of distributed recycling of post-consumer high density polyethylene for 3-D printing filament. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014;70:90–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.009.
- 67. Mikula K, Skrzypczak D, Izydorczyk G, Warchoł J, Moustakas K, Chojnacka K, et al. 3D printing filament as a second life of waste plastics—a review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021;28(10):12321–33. pmid:32888147
- 68.
Vieira FA, Da Silva SPM, De Oliveira JM. A New 3D Print Technology Filament 100% Based in Natural Biological Sources and Cork Waste. Materials Research Proceedings. 14.
- 69. Pakkanen J, Manfredi D, Minetola P, Iuliano L, editors. About the Use of Recycled or Biodegradable Filaments for Sustainability of 3D Printing. Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2017; 2017 2017//; Cham: Springer International Publishing.
- 70. Brans K. 3D Printing, a Maturing Technology. IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 2013;46(7):468–72. https://doi.org/10.3182/20130522-3-BR-4036.00112.
- 71. Pîrjan A, Petroşanu D-M. The Impact Of 3d Printing Technology On The Society And Economy. Romanian Economic Business Review. 2013;7:360–70.
- 72. Dilberoglu UM, Gharehpapagh B, Yaman U, Dolen M. The Role of Additive Manufacturing in the Era of Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing. 2017;11:545–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.148.
- 73. Haleem A, Javaid M. Additive manufacturing applications in industry 4.0: a review. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management. 2019;4(04):1930001.
- 74. Horst DJ, Duvoisin CA, de Almeida Vieira R. Additive manufacturing at Industry 4.0: a review. International journal of engineering and technical research. 2018;8(8):1–8.
- 75. Dentry M, Edwards C. Developing a 3D strategy. MHD Supply Chain Solutions. 2017;47(2):46–8.
- 76. Schniederjans DG. Adoption of 3D-printing technologies in manufacturing: A survey analysis. International Journal of Production Economics. 2017;183:287–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.11.008.
- 77. Garechana G, Rio-Belver R, Bildosola I, Cilleruelo-Carrasco E. A method for the detection and characterization of technology fronts: Analysis of the dynamics of technological change in 3D printing technology. Plos one. 2019;14(1):e0210441. pmid:30615689
- 78. Li J, Liu G, Ma Z. RD internationalization, domestic technology alliance, and innovation in emerging market. PloS one. 2021;16(6):e0252669. pmid:34170909
- 79. Katz JS. What is a complex innovation system? PloS one. 2016;11(6):e0156150. pmid:27258040
- 80. Espino-Rodríguez T F., Rodríguez-Díaz M. Determining the core activities in the order fulfillment process: an empirical application. Business Process Management Journal. 2014;20(1):2–24.
- 81. Smuts H, van der Merwe A, Kotz P, Loock M. Critical success factors for information systems outsourcing management: a software development lifecycle view. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists; Bela Bela, South Africa. 1899537: ACM; 2010. p. 304–13.
- 82. Khan GM, Khan SU, Khan HU, Ilyas M. Challenges and practices identification in complex outsourcing relationships: A systematic literature review. PloS one. 2022;17(1):e0262710. pmid:35100269
- 83. Marasco A. Third-party logistics: A literature review. International Journal of Production Economics. 2008;113(1):127–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.05.017.
- 84. Akbari M. Logistics outsourcing: a structured literature review. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2018;25(5):1548–80.
- 85. Damanpour F, Magelssen C, Walker RM. Outsourcing and insourcing of organizational activities: the role of outsourcing process mechanisms. Public Management Review. 2020;22(6):767–90.
- 86.
Stehrer R. Outsourcing Activities in the World Eeconomy. Global Outsourcing Strategies: Routledge; 2017. p. 165–76.
- 87. Erturgut R. The Future of Supply Chain and Logistics Management in the Strategic Organizations: Contractor Companies and New Generation Suppliers. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;46:4221–5.
- 88. Hsu CH, Wang F-K, Tzeng G-H. The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2012;66:95–111.
- 89. Jennings D. Strategic sourcing: benefits, problems and a contextual model. Management Decision. 2002;40(1):26–34.
- 90. Rintala O, Solakivi T, Laari S, Töyli J, Ojala L. Drivers of logistics outsourcing: examining transaction costs, core competences and planned behavior. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 2021;51(3):259–80.
- 91. Yang D, Liu S, Zhang Z, Huang F, Wang J. Strategic interaction of original equipment manufacturers between outsourcing and purchasing in a quality-differentiated market. PloS one. 2022;17(1):e0262678. pmid:35041715
- 92. Baden-Fuller C, Targett D, Hunt B. Outsourcing to outmanoeuvre:: Outsourcing re-defines competitive strategy and structure. European Management Journal. 2000;18(3):285–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(00)00010-4.
- 93. Nyameboame J, Haddud A. Exploring the impact of outsourcing on organizational performance. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing. 2017;10(3):362–87.
- 94. Awe OA, Kulangara N, Henderson DF. Outsourcing and firm performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Strategy and Management. 2018;11(3):371–86.
- 95. Huiskonen J, Pirttilä T. Lateral coordination in a logistics outsourcing relationship. International Journal of Production Economics. 2002;78(2):177–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(01)00114-1.
- 96. Tseng F-S, Yeh Y. Maintenance outsourcing coordination with risk-averse contractors. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2014;65(11):1760–9.
- 97. Gewald H, Schäfer L. Quo vadis outsourcing? A view from practice. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing. 2017;10(1):2–17.
- 98. Lacity M, Willcocks L. Business process outsourcing and dynamic innovation. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal. 2014;7(1):66–92.
- 99. Weeks MR, Feeny D. Outsourcing: From Cost Management to Innovation and Business Value. California Management Review. 2008;50(4):127–46.
- 100. Rogers H, Baricz N, Pawar KS. 3D printing services: classification, supply chain implications and research agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 2016;46(10):886–907.
- 101. Berman B. 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business Horizons. 2012;55(2):155–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003.
- 102. Berman B. Managing the Disruptive Effects of 3D Printing. Rutgers Business Review. 2020;5(3):294–309.
- 103.
Butler RG. Exploratory vs confirmatory research. Spain: Butler Scientifics. 2014.
- 104. Ferrer M, Santa R, Almadani SA. The interplay between competitive drivers, outsourcing and supply chain performance: The case of middle east supply chains. International Journal of Accounting Information Science & Leadership. 2013;6(17):107.
- 105. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Global Edition: Pearson Education; 2010.
- 106. Paul R, Adeshara P, Juric R, Kuljis J. A survey of acceptance of e-government services in the UK. Journal of computing and information technology. 2004;12(2):143–50.
- 107. Damanpour F. The Adoption of Technological, Administrative, and Ancillary Innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors. Journal of Management. 1987;13(4):675–88.
- 108. Yao JE, Xu X, Liu C, Lu J. Organizational Size: A Significant Predictor of it Innovation Adoption. Journal of Computer Information Systems. 2003;43(2):76–82.
- 109. Nachtigall C, Kroehne U, Funke F, Steyer R. (Why) Should we use SEM?—Pros and cons of Structural Equation Modelling. Methods of Psychological Research Online. 2003;8(2):1–22.
- 110. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334.
- 111. Bonett DG, Wright TA. Cronbach’s alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2015;36(1):3–15.
- 112. Marsh HW, Guo J, Dicke T, Parker PD, Craven RG. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and Set-ESEM: Optimal Balance Between Goodness of Fit and Parsimony. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2020;55(1):102–19. pmid:31204844
- 113.
Cooksey RW. Illustrating Statistical Procedures: For Business, Behavioural & Social Science Research. Prahran VIC 3181, Australia: Tilde University Press; 2007.
- 114. Wheaton B, Muthen B, Alwin DF, Summers GF. Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models. Sociological Methodology. 1977;8:84–136.
- 115. Marsh HW, Hau K-T, Wen Z. In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) Findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2004;11(3):320–41.
- 116. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin. 1990;107(2):238–46. pmid:2320703
- 117. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods. 1998;3(4):424–53.
- 118. Bollen KA. A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological methods & research. 1989;17(3):303–16.
- 119. Taylor LK. Impact of political violence, social trust, and depression on civic participation in Colombia. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. 2016;22(2):145.
- 120. Filippidou A O’Brien T. Trust and distrust in the resolution of protracted social conflicts: the case of Colombia. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression. 2020:1–21.
- 121. Tegethoff TM, Santa R, Morante DF, Valencia JC. Does trust have an impact on system and operational effectiveness? The implementation of e-government in Colombia. Electronic Government. 2019;15(3):241–60.
- 122.
Santa R, Morante D, Tegethoff T. Regiones inteligentes. La competitividad en el Valle del Cauca. Santa R, Morante D, Tegethoff T, editors. Santiago de Cali: Editorial ICESI y Escuela Militar de Aviación “Marco Fidel Suárez” (EMAVI); 2019.
- 123. Sánchez-Torres JA, Canada F-JA, Sandoval AV, Alzate J-AS. E-banking in Colombia: factors favouring its acceptance, online trust and government support. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 2018;36(1):170–83.
- 124. Carlier SI, Moreno A. Manager–Subordinate Trust Relationships in Colombia. Manager-Subordinate Trust: A Global Perspective. 2013:177.
- 125. Thoene U, Turriago-Hoyos A. Trust, business, and society in a post-conflict scenario-the case of managing workplace practices in Colombia. International Journal of Business and Globalisation. 2019;23(2):232–49.
- 126. Sinisterra KVB, Mejía SM, Molano JIR, editors. Industry 4.0 and Its Development in Colombian Industry. Applied Computer Sciences in Engineering: 4th Workshop on Engineering Applications, WEA 2017, Cartagena, Colombia, September 27–29, 2017, Proceedings 4; 2017: Springer.
- 127. Baena F, Guarin A, Mora J, Sauza J, Retat S. Learning Factory: The Path to Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing. 2017;9:73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.022.