VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI

2021 Online

ENTRY BARRIERS FOR INDUSTRY 4.0 IN ARGENTINA

Abstract: Industry 4.0 is a subject that has aroused high interest in recent years by
the academy and governments. Production on this topic has grown significantly in a short
period of time. The market, which demands more complex and unique products in small
quantities, must be satisfied. Traditional centrally controlled production processes will be
replaced by decentralized processes. Physical systems will be digitized, factories will be self-
regulating, optimizing their own operation. Productivity will be improved; fast solutions will
be provided in case of production problems and abnormal operations. Many challenges must
be faced, such as the high implementation costs, the organizational and process changes, the
security and data protection, and the need for qualified staff at all organizational levels who
are able to handle the increasing complexity of future production systems. To address these
issues, this article provides an analysis of the entry barriers to Industry 4.0 in Argentina. First,
a systematic literature review was performed. This work revealed a set of 12 entry barriers
factors. Second, based on literature review (SLR) and coding procedure, a synthesis and a
framework were developed. Third, a survey in 108 Argentine companies was performed,
obtaining the rank and strength of each of the 12 factors as follows: lack of specialized human
resources; lack of Industry 4.0 roadmap and planning; high reluctance to change; lack of
specific knowledge; lack of capital/financing; poor technical infrastructure; lack of helpful
public policies; Industry 4.0 complexity; lack of top management support; immature
organizational structure; lack of specialized strategic partners; and inadequate business
model.

Keywords: Industry 4.0; Digital Transformation; Entry Barriers.

VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

1. INTRODUCTION
Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is a topic that has aroused considerable interest in recent years, by
academics, professionals and governments, and literature production on this topic has grown
significantly in a short period of time (For 2018).
The German government introduced the term "Industrie 4.0" in 2011. This occurred
at the Hannover Fair, in order to describe a strategic approach to the manufacturing industry
which was based on the computerization of manufacturing (Matt 2020) (Sanders,
Elangeswaran, and Wulfsberg 2016). I4.0 is a national strategic initiative of the German
government promoted by the Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Ministry of
Economy and Energy (BMWI) (Qin, Liu, and Grosvenor 2016). Its objective is to drive digital
transformation, increasing digitization and interconnection of products, value chains, and
business models (Liu et al. 2020).
The Digital Transformation in the Industry, the so-called I4.0, involves very important
changes, both in technological factors, as in processes and fundamentally in people. These
changes are often seen by companies as entry barriers to I4.0. They are seen as
insurmountable obstacles, mainly for small and medium industries (SMEs). Factors, such as
lack of investment, need for capital or lack of training, are frequently heard in the business
environment.
The research question that is intended to be answered in this work is what these
barriers are, and what is the importance that each industrial sector gives to each one of them.
This is the topic discussed below.

2. INDUSTRY 4.0
2.1. Definitions and Concepts
The ability to autonomously interconnect products via the Internet, the expansion of
wireless communications, the development of robots and intelligent machines, and real-time
data analysis, have the potential to change the way people work in this new era, that is the
reason why it is considered the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) (Nedelcu, Dima, and
Dinulescu 2018).
Unlike previous industrial revolutions, which were led by innovations in
manufacturing processes and systems, 4IR advancements are driven by an intelligent,
interconnected, and ubiquitous environment (Julian Marius Müller, Buliga, and Voigt 2018).
While the previous industrial revolution focused on improving physical
manufacturing processes, expanding human power with additional energy sources, such as
machinery and steam power, a process for mass production through the introduction of
assembly lines, electronics, and automation, the 4IR is primarily focused on creating a digital
representation of physical processes in order to gain a better understanding of what is
happening with the process. For instance, a machine could show signs that something is wrong
and that a breakdown could occur. Those signals could be processed by predictive models that
would indicate deviation from normal operating conditions. Consequently, the digital model
can provide early information on the status of the equipment, allowing maintenance
personnel to determine the best time to repair it, moving from a reactive to a planned repair
(Dalzochio et al. 2020).
The key to the 4IR is the digitization of “things”. Digitization is understood as taking
analog information and encoding it using zeros and ones, so as computers could store,
process, and transmit information. Meanwhile, digitalization is the process of change in itself
(Powell et al. 2018).
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

Digital technologies have become key factors for those companies seeking to achieve
their goals. The application of these technologies to business and to the entire society is called
Digital Transformation (DT) (Salimbeni and Mamani 2020).
The world has changed the way people live, travel and work, all thanks to the Internet
and new applications that make use of new technologies (Sivagami et al. 2021). The different
devices, sensors and "things" that can communicate with each other, is what is called the
Internet of Things (IoT).
The concept of Internet of Things (IoT) dates back to 1999 and was originated by
Kelvin Ashton, a British technology pioneer. Most physical objects were made “smart” by
connecting them to the internet and also utilizing ubiquitous sensors (Oluwaseun and Numbu
2019). IoT joins the digital world and the physical world being considered the next generation
network or the future Internet (Lu, Morris, and Frechette 2016). IoT is generating an industrial
transformation, the so-called I4.0, and it is the key to the digital transformation of
organizations, cities, and society as a whole.
I4.0 is the integration and interaction of technologies, both in the digital and physical
fields, and this is what differentiates it from other industrial revolutions (Demartini and Tonelli
2018). The physical and virtual world are integrated into the so-called cyber-physical systems
(CPS) (Sommer 2015). I4.0 enabling technologies are cyber-physical production systems, the
industrial internet of things (IIoT), cloud computing, data analytics, augmented and virtual
reality, additive manufacturing, simulation techniques, and digital twins (Mantravadi and
Møller 2019) (Javaid et al. 2021).
Unterhofer et al. (2019) states that researchers, in general, agree that the enabling
technologies of I4.0 are the following: (1) Internet of things (IoT): which establishes a value
chain through the interconnection of machines to machines (assets-assets). (2) Cloud
computing: which provides enormous storage, network, and computing capacities that allows
the interaction between technologies. (3) Big Data and Data Analytics: those who build
capabilities to support real-time and intelligent decision-making by reducing downtime and
waste. (4) Additive Manufacturing, also known as 3D: reduces lead time from product design
to launch, enabling efficient customization and small batch or prototype production. (5)
Augmented reality: uses mathematical models, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality to
improve business generation. (6) Robotics: improves productivity through automated
manufacturing processes. (7) Cybersecurity: guarantees secure communication protocols that
ensure data security. (8) Machine Learning (ML): uses industrial sensors and instruments to
record and communicate data directly with software, to learn from them and make decisions.
(9) Simulation and digital twin: mimicking the operation of a real-world process help to
visualize the design and identify problems that could occur at a much earlier stage.
It could be said that nowadays I4.0 is starting, and great promises have emerged with
it, so as to face the latest challenges in service and manufacturing systems. I4.0 is reinforcing
this trend through the use of the just mentioned enabling technologies, changing the way of
life, creating new business models and new ways of manufacturing, thus, renewing the
industry for the so-called digital transformation (Alcácer and Cruz-Machado 2019). This new
paradigm refers to the creation of value from digitization (Veile et al. 2020).
I4.0 introduces several changes to the original approach to industrial automation. IoT
and CPS technologies play a key role in this context by introducing cognitive automation, and
consequently, implementing the concept of smart production, which leads to smart products
and services (Dalzochio et al. 2020).
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

2.2. Standards
Several associations and institutions, mostly in Germany, have cooperated in the
creation of the Reference Architecture Model for I4.0 (RAMI4.0) (Cotrino, Sebastián, and
González-Gaya 2020). This model is represented in three axes: (1) life cycle of the value
stream, (2) levels of hierarchies and (3) layers (Alcácer and Cruz-Machado 2019). It allows a
clear identification of the constituent elements and enables an integration between them,
both vertically and horizontally. Its importance lies in the areas of engineering, production,
marketing, and supply chain, everything connected creating a collaborative system integration
scenario, according to the flow of information and considering the levels of automation.
RAMI4.0 represents the I4.0 horizontal and vertical system integrations, and these two types
of integration permit real-time data exchange.
Horizontal integration occurs between different companies and different areas
within the same company. It is the basis for close and high-level collaboration between
organizations, using information systems to enrich the product life cycle, creating an
interconnected ecosystem within the same value creation network. That is why an
independent platform is necessary to achieve interoperability in the development of these
systems, based on industrial standards, that allow the exchange of data and information.
On the other hand, vertical integration is a network system; it is the integration within
departments within the same company and is the basis for the exchange of information and
collaboration between the different levels of the business hierarchy, such as corporate
planning, production scheduling or management. This is where the conjunction of Information
Technology (IT) and Operational Technology (OP) occurs (Salimbeni 2019).
In short, vertical and horizontal integration “digitize” the whole process within the
entire organization and the supplier-company-customer system, and compose all the data of
the processes, for example, quality management, process efficiency or operation planning,
which are available in real time. It is characterized by intelligently connecting, horizontally and
vertically, people, machines, objects, and information and communication technology (ICT)
systems. Therefore, future value creation is located in digitized factories and production
networks, with real-time capacity, intelligent, connected, and autonomous (Veile et al. 2020).
Finally, it can be said that RAMI 4.0 proposes: (1) the IEC 62890 standard as a
consistent data model for the entire product life cycle, distinguishing between type and
instance, (2) the IEC 62264 and IEC 61512 standards as a functional hierarchy for all the
components of Industry 4.0, and (3) a layer model that allows integrating different
technologies to represent the components from different points of view (Sarachaga et al.
2019).

2.3. Benefits
Kovács, Benotsmane, and Dudás (2019), conclude that the results of application of
the DT and I4.0 are: physical systems will be digitized, customers who demand more complex
and unique products in small quantities will be satisfied, traditional centrally controlled and
monitored production processes will be replaced by decentralized controlling, factories will
be self-regulating optimizing their own operation, productivity will be improved and fast
solutions can be provided in case of production problems and abnormal operations.
Researchers in New Zealand assert that with lower cost, better quality and higher
ability to serve customers, I4.0 makes the manufacturers a preferred supplier to current and
potential customers. It also opens up the way for companies to innovate rapidly, offers
customized products with high-quality and thus achieves higher revenues (Hamzeh, Zhong,
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

and Xu 2018). Darnley et al. (2018) also said that in the Danish industry, robotics improves
time efficiency. From the literature review, he found out that augmented reality (AR) improves
communication in industry across the globe, reducing response time and machine downtime.
Inspection service companies revealed that drones help surveyors complete their work faster
and more safely. Additionally, additive manufacturing producers and users showed that
additive printers increase the speed of prototyping and promote greater product
customization. Besides, Mezentseva (2021) states that it is too early to predict how global and
local economies will deal with the consequences of I4.0. No more than 7% of studies
concerned with Industry 4.0 focus on the issue of sustainability. The concept of Industry 4.0
entails necessary changes in the operational processes of companies. However, the macro and
microeconomic points of view of I4.0 remain a relatively little explored area (Correia Simões,
Lucas Soares, and Barros 2020).
There are studies focusing on innovation processes in companies, on the replacement
of labour by capital, and the consequences in the increasing unemployment rates and
globalization (Maresova et al. 2018). Turisová et al. (2021) confirm that thanks to these
studies, several activities are favourably affected in smart factories, among them: the
acquisition of product design data, the programming of process times, the planning of
production processes, resource planning (design proposal, identification number), the
planning of the factor of use and the layout of processes and workplaces, the systematization
of costs, the assurance of planning results, and the transfer of data to plan operations
(Nedelcu, Dima, and Dinulescu 2018). In sum, it is considered that I4.0 qualifies to maintain
the competitiveness of companies while guaranteeing future competitiveness (Veile et al.
2020).
Among those challenges, it is important to mention: high implementation costs,
organizational and process changes, security and data protection, the need for qualified staff
at all organizational levels able to handle the increasing complexity of future production
systems (Ganzarain and Errasti 2016). On the other hand, and as it has been already said, the
benefits in the adoption of new technologies are clearly identified: improvement of product
quality, improvement of communications, time and costs saving, improvement in the relations
with customers/consumers and more efficiency in development of customized
products/services (Graafmans et al. 2021). This emerging framework, driven by the I4.0, brings
not only advantages, but also great challenges, due to the huge number of devices and data
to manage. For this reason, specific solutions must be designed in order to cope with the
typical issues related to the IoT, such as energy and storage constraints, and challenging
scenarios (Bisio et al. 2018).
On the other hand, (Kowang et al. 2019) states that the utilization of I4.0 technologies
results in a reallocation of personnel from unskilled to technically skilled labour. A major
concern among employees in companies implementing I4.0 technologies is that technology
would replace the workforce.

2.4. Entry barriers to I4.0

Digitalization is no longer a choice; it is a necessity for all those companies that intend
to adapt to the new requirements of customers, both internal and external. The importance
of DT is such that it was included as one of the five dimensions of the Digital Economy and
Society Index (DESI - Digital Economy and Society Index) used by the European Commission to
analyse the evolution of member states.
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

During the systematic literature review (SLR) on SMEs and I4.0, the following
problematic dimensions have been identified: (1) financial and economic, (2) technical, (3)
skills and competences, (4) implementation, (5) political and legal, (6) strategic, (7) cultural
and (8) resource.
It should also be mentioned the limited knowledge that companies have about the
impact that I4.0 produces, in terms of business opportunities and disruption of the business
models (Mezentseva 2021) (Turkyilmaz et al. 2020); (Ling, binti Abdul Hamid, and Chuan
2020). Access to I4.0 could also be hampered by workers' lack of skills and competencies
(Schröder 2016) (Horváth and Szabó 2019) (Guido Orzes, Poklemba, and Towner 2020)
(Stentoft et al. 2019) (Kruszewska, Michna, and Forces 2021) (Ling, binti Abdul Hamid, and
Chuan 2020).
Horváth and Szabó (2019) and Turkyilmaz et al. (2020) admit that having a leader
without the appropriate qualifications, experience and knowledge of I4.0, could be considered
a significant barrier. In addition, long learning times in staff training and the need for
continuing education constitute a challenge.
Some of the obstacles most mentioned by the authors are those that refer to
technical and technological issues, such as the lack of technical knowledge (G. Orzes et al.
2019) (Turkyilmaz et al. 2020) (Mezentseva 2021) (Stentoft et al. 2019) (Veile et al. 2020)
(Sony, Antony, and Douglas 2021) (Ling, binti Abdul Hamid, and Chuan 2020) (Huang,
Chicoma, and Huang 2019) (Raj et al. 2019) and of infrastructures and technological facilities.
The increase in remote work represents a technical challenge for companies
(Kruszewska, Michna, and Forces 2021). Additionally, technological immaturity represents a
barrier for those enterprises that want to go into I4.0, together with the complexity of its
application, both technically and practically (Guido Orzes, Poklemba, and Towner 2020). The
emerging model cannot ignore environmental factors; sustainable solutions that consciously
use natural resources must be devised (Kruszewska, Michna, and Forces 2021).
One of the main requirements to develop technological integration is to have a
unified communication protocol (Horváth and Szabó 2019). The author recognizes this
integration could be affected without a “common thinking” and that it is important to develop
back-end systems with artificial intelligence (AI) to support the processing of large volumes of
data, which constitutes another technological challenge (Kruszewska, Michna, and Forces
2021).
Technological integration lessens the risk of fragility, reducing uncertainty in the
ecosystem. In turn, the lack of understanding of the interaction between technology and
people constitutes a barrier to go into I4.0 (Kovács, Benotsmane, and Dudás 2019).
Regarding the computer system, organizations have concerns about information
security and possible data ownership problems when storing large amounts of data. The
reliability of the systems is also questioned due to a weak Information Technology (IT)
infrastructure. It is essential to have an adequate bandwidth structure since obtaining data
quickly and securely is a basic condition for Industry 4.0 (Schröder 2016).
Regarding financial obstacles, the lack of monetary resources makes it difficult to go
into I4.0, since it requires a large investment that companies are not prepared to face (Horváth
and Szabó 2019) (Mezentseva 2021) (Guido Orzes, Poklemba, and Towner 2020) (Sony,
Antony, and Douglas 2021) (Ling, binti Abdul Hamid, and Chuan 2020) (Huang, Chicoma, and
Huang 2019).
In addition to this, the economic benefits to be obtained and the competitive
advantage are not clearly defined, so organizations do not see an undoubted motivation for
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

the implementation of I4.0 (Suleiman et al. 2021) (Hoyer et al. 2010) (Sony, 2020). Along the
same line, Kruszewska, Michna, and Forces (2021) remark that companies need to reduce
their costs to stay competitive by having products with a reduced life cycle and time to market.
Likewise, the implementation of these new technologies must be accompanied by support
policies, both from companies and governments (Mezentseva 2021) (Kruszewska, Michna,
and Forces 2021) (Sauer, Orzes, and Davi 2020) (Ling, binti Abdul Hamid, and Chuan 2020)
(Huang, Chicoma, and Huang 2019) (Javaid et al. 2021). Complementarily, the employees and
middle managers acceptance of those measures is needed by any organization (Horváth and
Szabó 2019) (Julian M. Müller 2019) (Raj et al. 2019). Guido Orzes, Poklemba, and Towner
(2020) also allude that the preference for self-employment or the difficulty in finding a
suitable research partner end up being barriers to I4.0. Adding to the above, there is currently
a lack of standards related to technology and processes (Horváth and Szabó 2019)
(Mezentseva 2021) (Guido Orzes, Poklemba, and Towner 2020) (Stentoft et al. 2019) (Raj et
al. 2019). Moreover, lack of standardization could lead to inoperability and incompatibility
between machines, companies, and infrastructure. For I4.0 implementation, in general terms,
a big problem is the absence of a methodical approach and conscious planning: definition of
objectives, steps, activities, and necessary resources. According to those authors, with I4.0
comes the need for new business models with flexible organizational structures and high
coordination. This is also hampered by the working conditions and environment, such as: a
lack of cooperation between departments and the will to do so, as well as contradictory
interests in different organizational units and by the organizational resistance of some
employees (Horváth and Szabó 2019) (Julian M. Müller 2019) (Sony, Antony, and Douglas
2021). In addition to organizational resistance, there are other organizational factors that
make it difficult for a company to enter I4.0. Focusing on the company operations at the
expense of its development and an inadequate organizational structure and processes, also
constitute barriers for I4.0 (Horváth and Szabó 2019) (Stentoft, Rajkumar, and Madsen 2017).
Getting into I4.0 is also hampered by legal challenges. Legal uncertainty occurs because
changes in new technologies befall at a faster rate than changes in legislation (Schröder 2016).
The author affirms that the complexity of the inconveniences to be regulated represent a
barrier for SMEs, especially for those that do not have their own legal department. The legal
challenges include: the protection of corporate data, commercial restrictions, problems in
granting responsibility for a problem, and the handling of personal data. Other bureaucratic
factors that function as barriers are deficiencies in bidding systems and their long evaluation
period (Horváth and Szabó 2019).

3. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. Approach: Qualitative-quantitative.
3.2. Research scope - type of work: Exploratory and descriptive, with a structured
questionnaire to interact with the people who experience them day by day.
3.3. Design: Non-experimental, transactional exploratory type.
3.4. Theoretical framework: Reading cards, mapping method, conceptual maps.
3.5. Data collection technique: Quantitative stage: survey. This was carried out by
means of a structured questionnaire, which makes it possible to compare different responses
to the same question and quantify each of the results obtained. Through this technique we
try to validate the hypotheses. The data collection to produce the state of the art has been
developed in the period from February to July 2021.
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

3.6. A systematic review of the literature is carried out in order to explore the current
state of Industry 4.0 barriers. A systematic review can be defined as the review of a matter
using systematic methods in order to identify, select and critically evaluate relevant research
(Martin et al., 2006). Papers were extracted from Scopus and ResearchGate databases so as
to guarantee a suitable selection of papers with high impact factor journals.
Web search engines were not used so as to avoid grey literature, and non-academic
material have not been included in this research work.
Searches were limited to as follows: (1) In academic databases with a search string
through the combination of the operator “or'' between the keywords, the references that met
the following criteria were collected; (2) They were published in congresses proceedings,
scientific articles, and books between the years 2016 and 2021; (3) contained at least one of
the search terms in the abstract, title and / or keywords; (4) Duplicates removed. (5) Those
that did not have full texts available were discarded. (6) Documents defining entry barriers to
I4.0 outside the scope of this research work were excluded. (7) They were classified according
to the research questions. (8) The selected documents were analysed, coding several
segments, and the corresponding data of interest for the research questions was collected.
The questionnaire for this research project contains 20 Likert questions with 4 items
scale.
3.7. Samples: the survey is administered to a group of industries / people called the
sample, with the aim of identifying trends in attitudes, opinions, behaviours, or characteristics
of a larger group of individuals called the population.
3.8. Processing and analysis techniques: The “e-survey” platform was used to carry out
web surveys by generating a matrix of data from the responses. It was converted to a
spreadsheet for further processing with a statistics software.
The research project has been carried out in three phases (figure 1): during Phase 1, a
systematic review of the literature was carried out regarding Industry 4.0´s Barriers. During
Phase 2 the study of the different entry barriers was deepened and classified by categories,
and in Phase 3 a survey n = 108 was carried out and its subsequent analysis.
For this research, the e-encuesta™, Mendeley ™, VOSviewer ™ and MAXQDA ™
software were utilised.

Figure1: Research Phases

Source: author's own

Figure 2: Keywords network analysis

VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

Source: author's own

Figure 3: Key Authors network analysis

Source: author's own

4. RESULTS
4.1. Questionnaire

Total: 20 questions. Questions 1 to 6: The 108 samples were classified according to:
(1) the country in which the company is located; (2) if said company is national or
multinational; (3) the size of the company; (4) the vertical market which it belongs to; (5) the
role of the respondent; (6), (7), and (8) knowledge and benefits of I4.0. Questions 9 to 20 are
related to the 12 factors used to analyse the I4.0 barriers. The main segmentation and Likert
scale are shown in the following figure 1:

Figure 4: Segmentation
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

▪ Strongly agree 4
▪ Moderately 3
agree
▪ Moderately 2
disagree
▪ Strongly 1
disagree

Source: author's own

Figure 5: Sample of online questionnaire

Source: author's own

Anderson-Darling test (normality test) was performed to uphold that the data came
from a normally distributed population.
An Alpha Cronbach test was performed for each of the 12 questions (factors).
In order to ensure whether the similarities or differences between said means were
statistically acceptable, two sample T-tests and CI were performed.
Before applying the T-test, normality tests were performed.
Mann-Whitney to test medians was also done.

4.2. Findings
4.2.1. Overall results

- 500 forms were randomly sent to different companies in Argentina, having received
115 responses (23% response rate).
- 7 were discarded for not applying to our study, leaving a valid sample of n = 108.
- Based on their characterization, they were segmented into:
o 48 SMEs and 60 large companies
o 76 of national origin and 32 multinationals.
o Two niches were analysed for this paper in particular: (1) service companies and (2)
electronics, IT, and telecommunications companies.
- 9 out of 10 of respondents reported having heard about I4.0.
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

- 7 out of 10 of those surveyed said they have knowledge about the economic and
competitive benefits that entails the adoption of Digital Transformation.
- In general terms, regarding the complexity of its implementation, half of the
respondents agreed that it is a barrier while the other half do not consider it a problem.
- Complexity, lack of public policies, lack of top management support and lack of
specialized human resources were the 4 most important barriers according to the
respondents.
- 6 out of 10 of the respondents indicated that the lack of favourable government
support, legislation, and regulations were important barriers.
- More than half of the respondents reported a lack of support from the top
management of the company.
- About 70% of those surveyed considered they would like to adopt Digital
Transformation technology and tools but that they lacked the personnel and qualified
workforce.
- Close to 60% of those surveyed considered they would like to adopt Digital
Transformation technology and tools but affirmed that they do not have a methodology or
route plans for that purpose.
- Half of the respondents reported not having sufficient economic / financial
resources for this purpose.
- About 45% of those surveyed considered that they would like to adopt Digital
Transformation technology and tools but that the IT infrastructure does not allow it.
- More than half of the respondents did not agree that the business model is
inappropriate or should be redesigned.
- Close to 50% of those surveyed considered that they would like to adopt Digital
Transformation technology and tools but that there is a very high resistance to change in the
organization.
- More than 40% of those surveyed consider that they would like to adopt Digital
Transformation technology and tools but that they do not have a supplier / strategic partner
for research and development of new applications in our company, they do not allow it.
- More than 50% of those surveyed consider that they would like to adopt Digital
Transformation technology and tools but do not have a Technology Leader with the
appropriate skills, competencies, knowledge, and experience resources in exponential
technologies.
- None of the respondents named any other entry barrier, apart from what was
surveyed and classified from the bibliographic review.
- Respondents, on average, admit that they moderately agree on 6 out of 12 factors,
and moderately disagree on the 6 others, which determines two sets of barriers, as shown in
figure 6.

Figure 6: Sets of Entry Barriers

Moderately agree Moderately disagree
● Lack of specialized human ● Lack of helpful public policies.
resources. ● I4.0 complexity
● Lack of I4.0 Roadmap and planning. ● Lack of top management support.
● High reluctance to change. ● Immature organizational structure.
● Lack of specific knowledge. ● Lack of specialized strategic
● Lack of capital/financing. partners.
● Poor technical infrastructure. ● Inadequate business model.
Source: author's own
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

- When people surveyed were asked about their complete knowledge of DT and I4.0,
7 out of 10 answered to be “strongly or moderately agree” (Figure 7, below).

Figure 7: Knowledge of TD and I4.0

Source: author's own

An overview of the results on the concordance of entry barriers to I4.0 is shown in

figure 8. Keys: SM: Small and Medium Enterprises. L: Large enterprises. N: National
companies. M: Multinational companies. Se: Services. E: Electronic, Information, and
Communications.
It can be clearly seen that the "Lack of I4.0 Roadmap & Panning" barrier is stronger
for SMEs, service companies, and national companies, than for multinational, large, and
technology companies.

Figure 8: The twelve entry barriers by segment

Source: author's own

VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

4.2.2. SMEs vs. Large companies

It can be clearly seen that, except for the barriers "Immature organization" and
"Reluctance to change", the differences of opinion between small and large companies are
statistically significant.

Figure 9: SMES vs. Large enterprises

Source: author's own

4.2.3. National vs. Multinational enterprises

It can be clearly seen that in the twelve factors the differences in opinions between
national and multinational companies are not statistically significant.

Figure 10: Nationals vs. Multinationals

Source: author's own

4.2.4. Service vs. TICs enterprises

VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

Several comparisons between types of company have been analysed. Due to length
constraints, just one example is shown below.

Figure 11: Service vs. TIC

Source: author's own

5. CONCLUSION
In order to analyse the barriers to entry into I4.0 in Argentina, a systematic review of
the worldwide literature was carried out. Following that, inductive data coding was performed
where sets of related codes were grouped into 12 basic defining criteria. Dividing the
separated factors into groups, allowed us to organize and understand the factors influencing
decision making for the implementation of I4.0. A survey was carried out in Argentina,
receiving 108 valid responses, which were deeply and statistically analysed. In average, the
three most important barriers detected were: I4.0 complexity, lack of public policies, and lack
of top management support, all of three with a score of 2,9 over 4.0. However, these averages
must be considered with great care since a great dispersion has been observed according to
the segment of the company interviewed. The limitations of this research work were the
limited sampling to draw conclusions from, at the country level and each of its regions, which
are quite different. Although the results are quite like those obtained in other countries, it
cannot be guaranteed that they are the same throughout the world.

REFERENCES

ALCÁCER, V., and V. CRUZ-MACHADO. “Scanning the Industry 4.0: A Literature Review on
Technologies for Manufacturing Systems.” Engineering Science and Technology, an
International Journal 22(3): 899–919. 2019
BISIO, Igor et al. “Exploiting Context-Aware Capabilities over the Internet of Things for Industry 4.0
Applications.” IEEE Network 32(3): 108–14. 2018
CORREIA SIMÕES, Ana, SOARES, António Lucas, and BARROS, Ana Cristina. “Factors Influencing the
Intention of Managers to Adopt Collaborative Robots (Cobots) in Manufacturing Organizations.”
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M 57(March 2019): 101574.
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101574. 2020.
COTRINO, Alberto, SEBASTIÁN, Miguel A., and GONZÁLEZ-GAYA, Cristina. “Industry 4.0 Roadmap:
Implementation for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.” Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
10(23): 1–17. 2020.
DALZOCHIO, Jovani et al. “Machine Learning and Reasoning for Predictive Maintenance in Industry
4.0: Current Status and Challenges.” Computers in Industry 123: 103298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103298. 2020.
DARNLEY, Ryan, DIPLACIDO, Matthew, KERNS, Michelle, and KIM, Alexander. “Industry 4.0:
Digitization in Danish Industry.” Interactive Qualifying Projects (All Years) (April): 127.
https://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/iqp-all/5185%0Ahttps://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-
project/Available/E-project-043018-094010/unrestricted/Industry4InDenmark_FinalPaper.pdf.
2018.
Demartini, M., and F. Tonelli. “Quality Management in the Industry 4.0 Era.” Proceedings of the
Summer School Francesco Turco 2018-Septe: 8–14. 2018.
FOR, Olicy. Research Proposal Writing Workshop. 2018
GANZARAIN, Jaione, and ERRASTI, Nekane . “Three Stage Maturity Model in SME’s towards Industry
4.0.” Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 9(5): 1119–28. 2016.
GRAAFMANS, Teun, Oktay Turetken, Hans Poppelaars, and Dirk Fahland. 2021. “Process Mining for
Six Sigma: A Guideline and Tool Support.” Business and Information Systems Engineering 63(3):
277–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00649-w.
HAMZEH, Reza, Ray Zhong, and Xun William Xu. 2018. “A Survey Study on Industry 4.0 for New
Zealand Manufacturing.” Procedia Manufacturing 26: 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.007.
HORVÁTH, Dóra, and SZABÓ, Roland Zs. “Driving Forces and Barriers of Industry 4.0: Do
Multinational and Small and Medium-Sized Companies Have Equal Opportunities?”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 146. 2019.
HOYER, Wayne D. et al. “Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development.” Journal of Service
Research 13(3): 283–96. 2010.
HUANG, Chung Jen, TALLA CHICOMA, Elisa Denisse, and HUANG, Yi Hsien. 2019. “Evaluating the
Factors That Are Affecting the Implementation of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Manufacturing
MSMEs, the Case of Peru.” Processes 7(3). 2019.
JAVAID, Mohd, HALEEM, Abid, PRATAP SINGH, Ravi, and SUMAN, Rajiv. “Significance of Quality 4.0
towards Comprehensive Enhancement in Manufacturing Sector.” Sensors International 2(June):
100109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100109. 2021.
KOVÁCS, György, BENOTSMANE, Rabab, and DUDÁS, László. “The Concept of Autonomous Systems
in Industry 4.0.” Advanced Logistic Systems - Theory and Practice 12(1): 77–87. 2019.
KOWANG, Tan Owee et al. “Industry 4.0 Competencies for Production Equipment Manufacturers in
Malaysia.” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 9(2): 300–
311. 2019.
KRUSZEWSKA, Joanna, and MICHNA, Anna. “DRIVING FORCES , BARRIERS AND COMPETENCES IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF INDUSTRY 4 . 0 : LITERATURE REVIEW DRIVING FORCES , BARRIERS AND
COMPETENCES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INDUSTRY 4 . 0 : LITERATURE REVIEW.” (July): 0–7.
2021.
LING, Yong Man, HAMID, Nor Aziati binti Abdul, and CHUAN, Lee Te. “Is Malaysia Ready for Industry
4.0? Issues and Challenges in Manufacturing Industry.” International Journal of Integrated
Engineering 12(7): 134–50. 2020.
LIU, X. L. et al. “Industrial Blockchain Based Framework for Product Lifecycle Management in Industry
4.0.” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 63(October 2019): 101897.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101897. 2020.
LU, Yan, MORRIS, K.C. , and FRECHETTE, Simon. 8107 National Institute of Standards and Technology,
NISTIR, Current Standards Landscape for Smart Manufacturing Systems.
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2016/NIST.IR.8107.pdf. 2016.
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

MANTRAVADI, Soujanya, and MØLLER, Charles. “An Overview of Next-Generation Manufacturing

Execution Systems - How Important Is MES for Industry 4.0.” Procedia Manufacturing 30: 588–
95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.083. 2019.
MARESOVA, Petra et al. “Consequences of Industry 4.0 in Business and Economics.” Economies 6(3):
1–14. 2018.
MATT, Dominik T. Industry 4.0 for SMEs Industry 4.0 for SMEs. 2020.
MEZENTSEVA, Elena. “Advantages and Barriers of Industry 4.0 Concepts Implementation in Small and
Medium Industrial Enterprises.” SHS Web of Conferences 93: 01007. 2021.
MÜLLER, Julian M. “Assessing the Barriers to Industry 4.0 Implementation from a Workers’
Perspective.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 52(13): 2189–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.530.
2019.
MÜLLER, Julian Marius, BULIGA, Oana, and VOIGT, Kai Ingo. “Fortune Favors the Prepared: How SMEs
Approach Business Model Innovations in Industry 4.0.” Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 132(January): 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019. 2018.
NEDELCU, Monica, DIMA, Adriana, and DINULESCU, Ruxandra. “Digital Factory - a Prerequisite for
Revitalizing the Production Sector.” Proceedings of the 12Th International Management
Conference: Management Perspectives in the Digital Era (Imc 2018) (January): 520–29. 2018.
OLUWASEUN, Adelaja, and NUMBU, Levis Petiho. “Industry 4 . 0 : The Fourth Industrial Revolution
And How It Relates To The Application Of Internet Of Things ( IoT ).” Journal of Multidisciplinary
Engineering Science Studies (February). 2019.
ORZES, G., RAUCH, Erwin , BEDNAR, S., and POKLEMBA, R. “Industry 4.0 Implementation Barriers in
Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: A Focus Group Study.” IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management 2019-Decem(December): 1348–52. 2019.
ORZES, Guido, Robert Poklemba, and Walter T. Towner. “Implementing Industry 4.0 in SMEs: A Focus
Group Study on Organizational Requirements.” Industry 4.0 for SMEs: 251–77. 2020.
POWELL, Daryl et al. “Towards Digital Lean Cyber-Physical Production Systems: Industry 4.0
Technologies as Enablers of Leaner Production.” IFIP Advances in Information and
Communication Technology 536(August): 353–62. 2018
QIN, Jian, LIU Ying , and GROSVENOR Roger . 2016. “A Categorical Framework of Manufacturing for
Industry 4.0 and Beyond.” Procedia CIRP 52: 173–78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.08.005. 2016.
RAJ, Alok et al. “International Journal of Production Economics Barriers to the Adoption of Industry 4
. 0 Technologies in the Manufacturing Sector : An Inter-Country Comparative Perspective.”
(November). 2019.
SALIMBENI, Sergio. “Estado Actual y Evolución de La Industria Nacional Hacia La Industria 4 . 0 -
REVISTA INNOVA Http://Www.Untref.Edu.Ar/Innova/En_curso_2.Php.” Innova UNTREF
(August).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergio_Salimbeni/publication/335516654_Estado_actual
_y_evolucion_de_la_industria_nacional_hacia_la_industria_40_-
_REVISTA_INNOVA_httpwwwuntrefeduarinnovaen_curso_2php/links/5d69e872299bf1808d59
c708/Estado-actual-y-evol. 2019.
SALIMBENI, Sergio, and MAMANI, Daniel . “Marco de Referencia Para La Incorporación de Cobots en
líneas de manufactura.” Podium 38(38): 159–80. 2020.
SANDERS, Adam, ELANGESWARAN Chola, and WULFSBERG Jens . “Industry 4.0 Implies Lean
Manufacturing: Research Activities in Industry 4.0 Function as Enablers for Lean
Manufacturing.” Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 9(3): 811–33. 2016.
SARACHAGA, I et al. “INTEGRACIÓN END-TO-END A TRAVÉS DEL MODELO DEL PRODUCTO 4.0.” :
155–61. 2019.
SAUER, Philipp C, ORZES, Guido, and DAVI, Laura. Technologies on SMEs ’ Business Models.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70516-9_10. 2020.
SCHRÕDER, Christian. the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung The Challenges of Industry 4.0 for Small and
Medium-Sized Enterprises a Good Society – Social Democracy # 2017 Plus.
VII Congresso Internacional em Tecnologia e Organização da Informação - TOI 2021 Online

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/12683.pdf. 2016.
SIVAGAMI, P, P ILLAVARASON, R. HARIKRISHNAN, and GOLUGURI Reddy. “IoT Ecosystem- A Survey
on Classification of IoT.” 2021
SOMMER, Lutz. “Industrial Revolution - Industry 4.0: Are German Manufacturing SMEs the First
Victims of This Revolution?” Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 8(5): 1512–32.
2015.
SONY, Michael, ANTHONY, Jiju, and DOUGLAS, Jacqueline Ann. “Motivations, Barriers and Readiness
Factors for Quality 4.0 Implementation: An Exploratory Study.” TQM Journal (July). 2021.
STENTOFT, Jan, WICKSTRØM JENSEN, Kent, PHILIPSEN, Kristian, and HAUG, Anders. “Drivers and
Barriers for Industry 4.0 Readiness and Practice: A SME Perspective with Empirical Evidence.”
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2019-Janua:
5155–64. 2019.
STENTOFT, Jan, RAJKUMAR Christopher, and SKOV MADSEN, Erik. “Industry 4 . 0 in Danish Industry:
An Empirical Investigation of The.” 2017.
SULEIMAN, Zhanybek, DIKHANBAYEVA, Dinara, SHAIKHOLLA, Sabit , and TURKYILMAZ, Ali .
“Readiness Assessment of SMEs in Transitional Economies: Introduction of Industry 4.0.” ACM
International Conference Proceeding Series (May): 8–13. 2021
TURISOVÁ, Renata et al. “Evaluation of Emaintenance Application Based on the New Version of the
EFQM Model.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 13(7). 2021.
TURKYILMAZ, Ali et al. “Industry 4.0: Challenges and Opportunities for Kazakhstan SMEs.” Procedia
CIRP 96(February): 213–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.077. 2020.
UNTERHOFER, M., RAUCH, Erwin , MATT, Dominik T., and SANTITEERAKUL S. . “Investigation of
Assessment and Maturity Stage Models for Assessing the Implementation of Industry 4.0.” IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management 2019-
Decem(December): 720–25. 2019.
VELIE, Johannes W., KIEL, Daniel, MÜLLER, Julian Marius, and VOIGT, Kai Ingo. “Lessons Learned from
Industry 4.0 Implementation in the German Manufacturing Industry.” Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 31(5): 977–97. 2020