Purpose For manufacturing firms, Industry 4.0 technologies comprise the two layers of base technologies (foundational blocks) and front-end technologies (advanced manufacturing technologies). Yet, most extant technology adoption research overlooks the differences between these two technology layers. This study investigates the effects of firm-level strategic orientations (customer, competitor and learning) on Industry 4.0 technology adoption, focusing on the base and front-end technologies and the mediating role of technology orientation. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on survey data collected from Australian manufacturing firms and analysed using the PLS-SEM method. Findings This study finds that the relationships between customer, competitor and learning orientations on Industry 4.0 base technology adoption are fully mediated by technology orientation; however, the hypothesised relationships between those strategic orientations and front-end technologies are not supported. Research limitations/implications The findings highlight the importance of strategic orientations and the significant role of technology orientation on Industry 4.0 base technology adoption. However, the study suggests that other factors beyond strategic orientations influence the adoption of front-end technologies. Practical implications The findings highlight the importance of strategic orientations and the significant effects of technology orientation on Industry 4.0 base technology adoption. They also suggest that other factors beyond strategic orientations influence the adoption of advanced front-end technologies. They call for a differentiated policy response to support manufacturing firms in upgrading to different technology levels, e.g. base technologies and advanced front-end manufacturing technologies. Originality/value The study contributes to the strategic technology management literature by examining the adoption of base and front-end technologies as distinct Industry 4.0 technology layers and by providing empirical evidence of differential antecedents across these two technology layers. It calls for a differentiated policy response to support manufacturing firms in their Industry 4.0 technology upgrading to different technology levels. It also resonates with the Technology-Organisation-Environment (TOE) literature that recognises interdependencies among TOE elements in enabling technology adoption.
Dilupa Nakandala (Fri,) studied this question.