Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study examines the readiness–adoption gap in large manufacturing companies, indicating a significant discrepancy in Industry 4.0 implementation.
Industry 4.0 is widely recognized as a strategic enabler of productivity, flexibility, and competitiveness in manufacturing systems. However, in emerging economies, declared preparedness for digital transformation often exceeds reported implementation. This study examines the readiness–adoption gap of Industry 4.0 in surveyed large manufacturing companies in Valle del Cauca, Colombia. An empirical cross-sectional study was conducted through a structured survey administered to large manufacturing companies in the region. The instrument was grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model and informed by a sociotechnical understanding of Industry 4.0 adoption. It captured perceptions of ICT infrastructure, workforce capabilities, expected benefits, implementation challenges, ease of use, and the reported implementation status of 20 Industry 4.0 technologies. Data from 59 valid responses were analyzed using descriptive statistical techniques, cross-technology comparisons, and an aggregate descriptive synthesis of readiness and adoption indicators. The findings suggest that adoption remains concentrated in foundational technologies such as cybersecurity, cloud computing, and data analytics, while advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence, cyber–physical systems, digital twins, and immersive technologies, show limited implementation despite favorable readiness perceptions. The aggregate synthesis points to a medium-to-high readiness proxy and a substantially lower average adoption level, suggesting the presence of a readiness–adoption gap. The study contributes empirical evidence from large manufacturing companies and derives two practical outputs: a readiness–adoption matrix and a staged roadmap for capability building and technology prioritization. These outputs are presented as context-specific exploratory tools rather than universally validated models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Quiroga-Parra et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: