PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH

2022, VOL. 10, NO. 1, 226–256

https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2022.2064931

Evaluating readiness degree for Industrial Internet of Things

adoption in manufacturing enterprises under interval-valued
Pythagorean fuzzy approach
Detcharat Sumrit
The Cluster of Logistics and Rail Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Mahidol University, Thailand

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The emergence of Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) technology has Received 30 December 2020
caused a paradigm shift in the global manufacturing sector, despite Accepted 5 April 2022
its adoption remains costly, complex, and high risk. Therefore, the KEYWORDS
assessment of manufacturers’ readiness prior to IIoT adoption has Evaluation readiness degree;
become very important. This study proposes the evaluation frame­ industrial internet of things;
work for IIoT adoption using the interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy interval-valued Pythagorean
set (IVPFS) method to reduce the uncertainty and ambiquity in fuzzy; multicriteria decision-
human decision-making process. Through the extensive literature making
review and experts, twelve readiness criteria have been identified
and validated. The relative importance weights of readiness criteria
were determined by IVPF-AHP and the IIoT adoption readiness
degree is calculated by IVPFS. The proposed approach enables
manufacturers to make a rational decision on whether they are
ready to initiate IIoT or take early remedial actions to increase the
success rate of the adoption possibility. A leading Thai agro-food
processing manufacturere is applied as an empirical case study.

1. Introduction
Internet of Things (IoT) technology is considered as a disruptive technological innova­
tion. It is a growing technological platform and widely spread especially in an embedded
network of various types of intelligent devices, autonomous vehicles, IoT automation,
robots, and other connected devices (Majeed & Rupasinghe, 2017; Kamble et al., 2018).
With its capability in predictive analysis and big data analytics, IoT can create the
opportunities to increase an efficiency, the enhancement of traceability and productivity,
incremental revenues, flexibility, and profitability (Khan & Salah, 2018). Data from IoT
systems will help decision-makers easier to gain new insights for generating and deliver­
ing values, virtualizing across the supply chain, enhancing customers’ engagements, and
implementing more effective policies and practices (Khan & Salah, 2018; Kamble et al.,
2019). One of the most popular smart technologies of manufacturers is the Industrial
Internet of Things (IIoT). IIoT then refers to IoT technology applied in the manufactur­
ing process, which is believed to affect the future integration and optimization of

CONTACT Detcharat Sumrit [email protected] The Cluster of Logistics and Rail Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering Mahidol University, Thailand
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 227

information technology (IT) (Kiel et al., 2017). Many manufacturing firms are driven by
different strategies in different technologies (Kiel et al., 2017). IIoT also provides an
interactive platform for real-time interactions among the involved stakeholders.
With the overall emergence of IIoT technology movement, all industries, both large
corporate firms and small-medium enterprise companies, are affected in unavoidable
circumstances. Currently, the industrial players acknowledge the IIoT benefits in the
supply chain process and require to be in the state of readiness to adopt the technology.
Despite the remarkable potentials of IIoT, many firms have not been successful in IIoT
implementation due mainly to encounters with the complexity, numerous risk and
obstacles, and high cost of IIoT adoption (Hsu & Yeh, 2017). Hence, the assessment of
readiness for IIoT adoption or emerging technological innovations becomes highly
important for manufactures in order to reduce unexpected risks (Lokuge et al., 2019).
However, they also encounter the challenges in lacking of the evaluation frameworks to
guide IIoT implementation.

1.1. Research motivations

There are four reasons that motivated the proposal of this study, which are as follows:
First, after a thorough analysis of the published literature, it is found that the research
that identified and evaluated the readiness to IIoT adoption in the manufacturing sector
is very scarce. In addition, the IIoT adoption in developing countries such as Thailand
has not been broadly explored as much as compared to developed countries. To address
this knowledge gap, this research proposes a comprehensive framework for evaluating
the readiness degree for IIoT adoption in manufacturing enterprises. A case study in Thai
leading agro-food processing manufacturer is performed to demonstrate the application
of the proposed framework. Under the program of the Thai government, this industry is
one of the ten key industries that will be transformed into a modern industry using new
advanced manufacturing technologies. The Thai agro-food processing industry accounts
for approximately 23% of the country’s GDP. With a large labor force and high invest­
ment in research and development, this industry has become an important growth
engine for the national economy.
Second, research on IIoT adoption is still in the early stage of development (Kamble et
al., 2019). Most of the relevant studies were carried out with normative and theoretical
contribution (Gretzel et al., 2015), qualitative case studies (Nolich et al., 2019), and
conventional statistical methods (Bogicevic et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the evaluation of
an emerging technologies adoption such as IIoT is a complex strategic decision and
involves many decision criteria. Hence, the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)
approach is selected to deal with such problems. It is also widely used as the best
alternative to compute, with various decision criteria being simultaneously considered
(Bakioglu and Atahan, 2021). In addition, human decision-making processes are often
inherited with uncertainty, ambiguity, and inaccurate information caused by decision-
makers. The combination of MCDM and fuzzy set theory, namely, ‘Fuzzy Multi-Criteria
Decision-Making’ (FMCDM) is an effective tool to deal with such issues (Seiti et al., 2019;
Zadeh, 1975). Until recently, there have been few studies using FMCDM approaches to
evaluate IIoT adoption.
228 D. SUMRIT

Next, there are many different types of fuzzy sets such as triangular fuzzy set (TFS),
interval two-type fuzzy set (IT2FS), intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS), and Pythagorean fuzzy
set (PFS) (Yager, 2014). The principle of PFS and IFS is similarity in which both of them
can be presented in terms of membership, non-membership function, and hesitancy
degree. The advantage of PFS over IFS is that it allows the sum of degrees of membership
and non-membership values to be greater than 1, but the sum of squares of two values
does not exceed 1 (Perez-Dominguezet al., 2018a). For example, if a decision-maker
(DM) provides the membership degree and the non-membership to be 0.7 and 0.4,
respectively, then it will not be able to operate under IFS. The interval-valued
Pythagorean fuzzy set (IVPFS) is a new extension of PFS in forms of authorizing the
membership and non-membership levels of the set with the interval value. Therefore,
IVPFS has more flexibility and ability than PFS so as to handle strong fuzziness,
ambiguity, and imprecision information during the decision-making process (Yu et al.,
2019). Recently, IVPFS has been extensively applied in various real-world decision-
making problems, i.e. sustainability for supplier selection (Yu et al., 2019), evaluation
for large, high-technology project portfolios (Mohagheghi et al., 2020), and supplier
selection for sustainable e-bike sharing recycling (Tang & Yang, 2021). Due to its super­
ior benefits, this study used the IVPFS method as one of the useful tools in FMCDM
approaches to evaluate the readiness degree for IIoT adoption based on its dealing with
vagueness of decision-makers. IVPFS has also not previously been employed to evaluate
the adoption of emerging technologies in manufacturing.
Finally, one of the essential parts in MCDM is to accurately determine the relative
importance of each criterion. Among MCDM techniques, the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) is the most popular technique used for analyzing the relative importance weights
of the evaluation criteria. AHP provides many advantages such as (i) the pairwise
comparison allows users to easily define the weight criteria and alternatives comparison
and (ii) AHP’s measurement scale can easily accommodate decision-making problems in
various sizes of the hierarchical structure (Bakioglu & Atahan , 2021). In this study,
Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy AHP (IVPF-AHP) was utilized to handle vagueness
and the impreciseness in determining the relative importance weights of the readiness
criteria for IIoT adoption.

1.2. Research contributions

Based on the above discussions, this study makes four unique contributions to the body
of knowledge in the IIoT adoption domain, which are as follows:
(i) This study is the first attempt to propose an evaluation framework of readiness
degree for IIoT adoption in manufacturing, which has never been addressed in any
previous studies.
(ii) The proposed evaluation framework is conceptualized as a FMCDM problem,
which can provide more insights into the uncertainty and imprecise information in
decision-making processes.
(iii) In this study, IVPF-AHP is employed to calculate the relative importance weights
of readiness criteria and IVPFS is used for evaluating the readiness degree. The applica­
tion of IVPFS can effectively reflect the uncertainty of inaccurate information of deci­
sion-makers compared to IFS.
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 229

(iv) This study contributes to the literature on the evaluation of IIoT readiness
adoption in developing countries, which has been scarce in previous studies. Although
the focus is on the agricultural food processing industry of Thailand, this proposed
framework can be considered as a reference for other industries in all developing
countries as they share similar characteristics.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents literature
review. The research methodology is described in Section 3. The empirical case study is
presented in Section 4. Section 5 provides the discussions of findings, the readiness
degree evaluation of overall and case company, and a benchmarking study. Managerial
implications are provided in Section 6. The conclusion is presented in Section 7. Finally,
future research is given in Section 8.

2. Literature review
This section provides an overview of the existing literature on IIoT, followed by the
readiness factors/criteria of IIoT adoption.

2.1. Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT)

Industrial Internet of Things, also known as IIoT, stands for the Internet of Things
(IoT) technology in manufacturing processes. IIoT is characterized by the integration
of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), which connects the physical and digital worlds to
manage industrial processes. With the CPS concept, manufacturers can create interac­
tions between the real and virtual worlds along the core manufacturing value chain.
IIoT is a widely spread technology platform of autonomous and intelligent devices
(Kiel et al., 2017).
The primary objective of IIoT adoption is to achieve increased productivity, opera­
tional efficiency, and enhanced management of the manufacturing process and assets
through product customization, intelligent inspection in the production shop floors, and
predictive and preventive maintenance of production equipment. There are several
technologies that are embedded under the IIoT umbrella, including cloud computing,
machine-to-machine (M2M) communication, machine learning, artificial intelligence
(AI), and distributed computing. IIoT results in not only a shift in technical manufac­
turing but also broader corporate impact and opportunities (Kiel et al., 2017).
Implementing IIoT in supply chains and operations provides tangible commercial
benefits such as low risk and cost, increased transparency, visibility, flexibility, opera­
tional flow, and virtualization (Khan & Salah, 2018; Trappey et al., 2017).
Manufacturing enterprises have realized the impacts of IIoT in five key perspectives
such as design and innovation, asset utilization and revenue planning, supply chain and
logistics design, resource productivity optimization, and extension of stakeholder experi­
ence. Notwithstanding, the IIoT adoption remains costly, complex, and high risk for
manufacturers. Therefore, the assessment of manufacturers’ readiness prior to IIoT
adoption has become very important.
230 D. SUMRIT

2.2. Readiness factors/criteria for IIoT adoption

2.2.1. Top management commitment and support
A large and growing literature investigated how the level of commitment and support of
top management positively influence the introduction of new technologies in manufac­
turing organizations (Oliveira et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2015). Conversely, the managerial
obstacles negatively impact the decision to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies.
According to Gangwar et al. (2015), the innovative technology adoption has been shifted
from top to bottom. Sony and Naik (2019) emphasized that top management should
understand the contribution of IoT adoption to the future of competitive advantage and
organizational performance. It is supported that the commitment and support from top
management played a key role in keeping up with strategic news, resource commitment,
resolving resistance to change, and assessing an organization’s ability to implement new
technologies (Oliveira et al., 2019).

2.2.2. Financial capability

The adoption of IIoT requires a long-term investment and high acquisition costs in
enabling technologies such as identification and tracking technologies, wired and wire­
less sensors, and actuator, enhanced communication protocols, and distributed intelli­
gence for smart objects (Kache & Seuring, 2017; Kovács, 2018). Consequently, IoT
adoption of manufacturers will incur additional costs for repair and maintenance of
IoT infrastructure technology (Ryan & Watson, 2017). In a study conducted by Kamble
et al. (2018), the adoption cost is a major obstacle for IIoT adoption among manufac­
turers. Only manufacturers with sufficient financial resources can adopt IIoT technology.

2.2.3. Managing cyber security and privacy

Due to the high volumes of data transmission and exchange between devices in the IoT
system, it is vulnerable to cyber attacks. Reaidy et al. (2015) and Bruijn & Janssen (2017)
investigated that IoT security is not only about accountability, authorization, validity,
and authenticity but also related to business continuity, disaster recovery, and data
protection. According to Lee and Lee (2015), Insecured or inadequately authorized
data encrytion or web interfaces make the IoT more vulnerable to cyberattacks.
Therefore, manufacturers are aware of cyber threats and invest in cyber-security
(Hughes et al., 2017). Díaz et al. (2016) and Ouaddah et al. (2017) suggested that the
establishment of special protocols, authentication, and authorization for supporting large
volumes of data transmission and exchange among a wide variety of devices in IoT
system is vulnerable to cyber attacks (Bruijn & Janssen, 2017; Reaidy et al., 2015).
Raut et al. (2018) examined that IoT security is not only just about accountability,
authorization, and authenticity but also related to business continuity, disaster recovery,
and data protection. According to Karkouch et al., (2016), because of the lack of
transportation encryption, insecure web interfaces or insufficient authorization causes
IoT vulnerable to against cyber attacks. Thus, manufacturers are aware of cyber threats
and invest in cyber security (Hughes et al., 2017). Díaz et al., (2016) and Ouaddah et al.,
(2017) suggested that the creation of special protocols, authentication and authorization
for reliable access control and interaction, security through transparency, or hardware-
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 231

based security at the chipset level can reduce cyber security and privacy risks. Kamble et
al., (2018) emphasized that the assurance of security and privacy in manufacturer’s IoT is
essential for IoT adoption.

2.2.4. Digital business model development

Previous research identified that most of the business model innovations are derived
from new technology opportunities (Ng et al., 2015; Parry et al., 2016; Rymaszewska et
al., 2017). The transition to IoT adoption would spawn new capabilities and open up the
new opportunities and challenges that lead to new sources of revenues for manufacturers
(Lerch & Gotsch, 2015). IoT also provides a wide range of benefits for organizations, such
as productivity enhancement, information exchange of both products and services, and
real-time interaction improvement for the relevant stakeholders (Ghanbari et al., 2017).
Ikävalko et al. (2018) viewed the process of IoT implementation to be very complicated,
which could render traditional business model ineffective. Therefore, manufacturers
need to develop a new digital business model to deal with technological complexity
and enable high-level suppliers and consumer engagement (Ikävalko et al., 2018). The
digital business model will guide organizations in achieving Interaction with IoT tech­
nology (Lee & Lee, 2015). Without proper digital business development, organizations
cannot generate revenues and profits and leverage the real IIoT benefits (Frank et al.,
2019; Sarvari et al., 2018).

2.2.5. Technology infrastructure

The adoption of IoT requires a strong backbone of IT infrastructure to facilitate data
communication within a network, which includes sensors, internet coverage, high-
bandwidth internet access, and high-speed network for transmission and exchange of
data among different devices (Davis et al., 2015). Raut et al. (2018) claimed that the
availability of the sufficient IT infrastructure is one of the critical factors for the readiness
of IIoT adoption. This is also aligned with a study by Hasselblatt et al. (2018), manu­
facturing enterprises considering IoT adoption should have adequate technological
infrastructure, as well as supporting solutions in place that digitize core business
processes.

2.2.6. Change management capability

IoT advancements have resulted in tremendous changes in operations and technology,
production, physical infrastructure, human resources, and implementation (Hasselblatt
et al., 2018). To accommodate these changes, the culture and structure of manufacturing
organizations must be changed, which may cause the organizational resistance (Vey et al.,
2017). Kiel et al. (2017) stated that the increased use of production automation in IoT
would remarkably reduce the workforces. Consequently, it will lead to unemployment
and probably even make employees resist IoT adoption (Lee & Lee, 2015). Furthermore,
Horváth & Szabó (2019) noted that many manufacturers operating in traditional busi­
ness practices were often reluctant to give up their status quo and traditional practices.
The organization’s ability to implement the appropriated change management would
help to achieve cultural acceptance of innovation (Müller et al., 2018). Fischer and Pöhler
(2018) emphasized that the success of change management requires all supports and
participations from top executives and employees in an organization. A similar
232 D. SUMRIT

conclusion, drawn by Schallock et al. (2018), stated that top management’s involvement
is essential to improve awareness, motivate risk exposure, and eliminate resistance to the
introduction of new production technology.

2.2.7. Data management and analytics capabilities

Reaidy et al. (2015) viewed that it is difficult to measure data integrity and accuracy
because large amounts of data are exchanged between devices and connected physical
objects in IoT. However, the manufacturers’ ability to manage and analyze huge volumes
of data generated from heterogeneous sensors on a real-time basis is one of the key
success factors for IoT adoption (Horváth & Szabó, 2019). The ability to ingest data from
IoT systems into a data lake would provide opportunities for predictive analytics,
learning ability, self-efficacy, and decentralized decision-making (Ben-Daya et al.,
2017). Also, Raj et al. (2020) emphasized that the ability to data analysis can transform
sensor data into automated-enabled data. Lu (2017) supported that the effective data
management would eliminate errors and damage caused by defective data.

2.2.8. Seamless value-chain integration

IoT can be characterized by a network of connected objects, enabling data and informa­
tion sharing among different objects (Mital et al., 2018). Therefore, one of the key success
factors for IoT adoption is the ability to integrate and collaborate between various
technologies and networks systems that create information flows across the value chain
(Majeed & Rupasinghe, 2017). In such a case, manufacturers need to build a close co-
operation between value chain partners for a whole spectrum of horizontal and vertical
integration (Breunig et al., 2016). The seamless integration capabilities can enable real-
time visualization and data exchange throughout the supply chain and also can lead to
create a superior competitive advantage (Dalenogare et al., 2018). This argument is
further in line with Ghobakhloo (2018).

2.2.9. Strategic technology roadmap for digitalization

IIoT Adoption will radically change the business landscape of manufacturers and have a
significant impact on short- and long-term performance. On the transition from tradi­
tional manufacturing to successful IIoT adoption, manufacturers initially had to for­
mulate a comprehensive strategic technology roadmap to guide their digital
transformation (Sarvari et al., 2018). Aligned with Horváth and Szabó (2019), the
strategic technology roadmap is an important tool for manufacturers to secure IoT
adoption, enabling manufacturers plan for better visibility and understanding for each
stage of the integrated mobility as well as to make better decisions.

2.2.10. Employees digital knowledge

As manufacturing becomes more digital, potential employees will need to increase their
IT skills and digital knowledge (Kamble et al. (2018). To be in line with this view, Hecklau
et al. (2016) discussed that manufacturers need to develop qualified and knowledgeable
employees with up-to-date digital skills before IoT implementation. Davis et al. (2015)
also placed a great emphasis on the importance of hiring quality staffs to manage digital
processes. Thus, the digital literacy of employees will play an important role in integrat­
ing IoT adoption in manufacturing facilities (Sivathanu & Pillai, 2018).
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 233

2.2.11. Digital culture readiness

Digital culture readiness is described as the values and norms of organizations fostering
the adoption of digital innovation (Raj et al., 2020). Previous research has investigated
how companies that have been successful in making new digital technologies emphasizes
on the development of the digital culture of organization (Büschgens et al., 2013). Duerr
et al. (2018) reported that there is a positive correlation between the role of digital culture
and the successful adoption of advance manufacturing technologies. In line with Bughin
and van Zeebroeck (2017), the organizational digital culture can influence the acceptance
of new technologies in manufacturing environment. Rajput and Singh (2019) stated that
digital culture can shape the organization behavior in which its members recognize the
value of adopting digital technologies as a source of competitive advantage. Hence, digital
culture should be a prerequisite for IIoT adoption.

2.2.12. Lean practices implementation

A recent study by Mayr et al. (2018) affirmed that lean practices such as continuous flow,
waste reduction, and standardization have a positive correlation with the success of the
advanced automation technologies implementation in manufacturers. A similar conclu­
sion was drawn by Wang et al. (2016) that lean practices are essential for Industry 4.0.
From a technology perspective, the integration between lean practices and Industry 4.0
can help to increase productivity and reduction of waste and costs (Buer et al., 2018).

3. Research methodology
3.1. Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy set
The basic concepts of the Interval-valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Set (IVPFS) and their
essential mathematical operations are briefly presented.

~ is a set of IVPFS, which can be

Definition 1. Let X represent a finite nonempty set, and P
defined by the following equation (Peng & Yang, 2016):
�� �� L � � ��� �
~¼
P x; μP~ ðxÞ; μUP~ ðxÞ ; νLP~ ðxÞ; vPU~ ðxÞ jx 2 X (1)
h i h i
where μLP~ ðxÞ; μUP~ ðxÞ is the interval-valued degree of membership and νLP~ ðxÞ; νUP~ ðxÞ
is the interval-valued non-degree of membership of element X on the IVIFS P.The ~
L U L U L U
conditions of μP~ ðxÞ, μP~ ðxÞ, νP~ ðxÞ,νP~ ðxÞ 2 ½0; 1�, 0 � μP~ ðxÞ � μP~ ðxÞ � 1, 0
� νLP~ ðxÞ � νUP~ ðxÞ � 1, and ; 0 � μUP~ ðxÞ2 þ νUP~ ðxÞ2 � 1 need to be satisfied. In addition,
the degree of hesitancy of x to P ~ can be defined by the following formula:
�qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�
2 2 2 2
πP~ ðxÞ ¼ 1 ðμUP~ ðxÞÞ ðνUP~ ðxÞÞ ; 1 ðμLP~ ðxÞÞ ðνLP~ ðxÞÞ : (2)

� � � �
Definition 2. Let f
~ 1 = μ L ; μ U ; ½ν1 L ; ν1 U � and f
P 1 1
~ 2 = μ L ; μ U ; ½ν2 L ; ν2 U � represent two
P 2 2
interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy numbers (IVPFNs), then the mathematical operations
of IVPFNs are defined as follows (Peng & Yang, 2016):
234 D. SUMRIT

�qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�
~1 � P
~2 ¼ h 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
P ðμL1 Þ þ ðμL2 Þ ðμL1 Þ ðμL2 Þ ; ðμU1 Þ þ ðμU2 Þ ðμU1 Þ ðμU2 Þ ; ½νL1 νL2 ; νU1 νU2 �i (3)

�qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�
~1 � P
~2 ¼ h½μL μL ; μU μU �; 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
P 1 2 1 2 ðνL1 Þ þ ðνL2 Þ ðνL1 Þ ðνL2 Þ ; ðνU1 Þ þ ðνU2 Þ ðνU1 Þ ðνU2 Þ i

(4)

�qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi� h i
~1 ¼ h 2 λ 2 λ λ λ
λP 1 ð1 ðμL1 Þ Þ ; 1 ð1 ðμU1 Þ Þ ; h ðνL1 Þ ; ðνU2 Þ ii; λ > 0; (5)

h i �qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiλffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiλffi �
λ λ λ 2 2
~1 Þ ¼ h ðμ Þ ; ðμ Þ ;
ðP L U
1 ð1 ðνL1 Þ Þ ; 1 ð1 ðνU1 Þ Þ i; λ > 0 (6)
1 1

� �
Definition 3. Let P~¼ P ~ ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; kÞ be a collection of IVPFNs by using Table 1,
h i h i j
~j ¼ μ ; μ ; νj ; νj . Then, the group aggregated values by the interval-valued
P L U L U
j j
Pythagorean Fuzzy Weighted Geometric (IVPFWG) operators can be described as
~ n ! P,
P ~ and the IVPFLWA operator is described as follows (Du et al., 2017):

IVPFWG
~1 ; P
ðP ~2 ; . . .P
~n Þ ¼
0" # 2v
u
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 31
u
Y K � Y
k � u Y K � �2 �λk u Y K � �2 �λk
λ λ
@ μLk k ; μUk k ; 4t1 1 vLk ; t1 1 vUk 5A
k¼1 j¼1 k¼1 j¼1

(7)

sffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
1
�2 � �2
2 1 πLk þ 1 π~Uk
λk ¼ sffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi (8)
PK � �2 � �2
1 L U
k¼1 2 1 π ~k þ 1 π ~k

where λj ¼ ðλ1 ; λ2 ; . . . λk ÞT is the weighted vector of P

~j , i = 1, 2, . . . k, with λj 2 ½0; 1�
P
k
and λj ¼ 1:
j¼1

Table 1. Linguistic term and the corresponding interval-valued pytha­

gorean fuzzy numbers (IVPFN).
Linguistic terms IVPFN
Very good (VG) ([0.80, 0.95],[0.00, 0.15])
Good (G) ([0.70, 0.80],[0.15, 0.25])
Medium good (MG) ([0.55, 0.70],[0.25, 0.40])
Medium (M) ([0.45, 0.55],[0.40, 0.55])
Medium poor (MP) ([0.30, 0.45],[0.55, 0.70])
Poor (P) ([0.20, 0.30],[0.70, 0.80])
Very poor (VP) ([0.00, 0.20],[0.80, 0.95])
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 235

� �
~ ¼ h μ ; μ ; ½νL ; νU �i be an IVPFN. πL and πU are the hesitancy
Definition 4. Let P L U
degrees of the lower and upper points of A, respectively. This can be calculated as in
Equation 9 and Equation 10 (Peng & Yang, 2016),
π2L ¼ 1 ðμ2U þ ν2U Þ; (9)

π2U ¼ 1 ðμ2L þ ν2L Þ: (10)

~ ¼ h½μL ; μU �; ½νL ; νU �i be an IVPFN. The defuzzification of this num­

Definition 5. Let P
ber is calculated Equation 11. This defuzzification equation is based on dilation and
concentration operations on membership and non-membership degrees (Haktanır &
Kahraman, 2019),
� � � qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi�
� μ2L þ μ2U þ 1 ν2L π2U þ 1 ν2U π2L þ μL μU þ 4 1 ν2L π2U � 1 ν2U π2L
~ ¼
D P
6
(11)
� �
A larger value of PD A ~ indicates a large A ~ since 0 � μ2 þ ν2 � 1; PD A~ 2 ½0; 1�.
U U
� �
Definition 6. Let B^tk ðt ¼ l; . . . ; nÞ ^k ¼ 1; . . . ; l be a group of crisp numbers and /ij ¼
� � � �
μ t ; νBt ðt ¼ 1; . . . :; nÞ ^k ¼ ^l þ 1; . . . ; m be a group of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers
B^ ^k
k
(IFNs). Therefore, the aggregated value, which is represented by AIFIS, is also an IFN
Perez-Dominguez, et al., 2018b),
� � �Y�l � �wj � � � �wj �
t
t t t
AIFISi B1 ; . . . ; B^l ; β�l þ1 ; . . . ; βm ¼ t
^k¼1 B^k � �^m �
k ¼ l þ1
β^tk

0 � �1 0 � �1
� Ym � Q�l^ ðB^t Þ
wj �Ym � Q�l^ ðB^t Þ
wj

¼ @1 ðμβ^t Þwj A; @1 νβ^t Þwj A

k¼1 k k¼1 k
1 ^k¼�lþ1 ^k ¼�lþ1 ð1
k k

(12)
where AIFISi represents the aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy index of similarity for alter­
native i.
wj ðj ¼ 1; . . . ; mÞ is the corresponding crisp weight for criterion j satisfying
Pm
wj > 0ðj ¼ 1; . . . ; mÞ and wj ¼ 1.
j¼1

3.2. Determining the weights of IIoT adoption readiness criteria by interval-

valued Pythagorean fuzzy AHP
The IVPF-AHP method has been mainly applied to determine the criteria weight of the
evaluation criteria. Also, the IVPF-AHP approach has been developed for managing
multi-criteria decision-making problems, such as a risk evaluation and prevention in
hydropower plant operations (Yucesan & Kahraman, 2019), occupational health and
safety risk assessment (Gul, 2018), a comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in
occupational health and safety risk assessment (Gul & Ak, 2018), and the quality
236 D. SUMRIT

Table 2. Weighting scale for IVPF-AHP (IIbahar et al., 2018).

IVPFN equivalents
Linguistic terms numbers
μL μU νL νU
Certainly Low Importance – CLI 0.00 0.00 0.90 1.00
Very Low Importance – VLI 0.10 0.20 0.80 0.90
Low Importance – LI 0.20 0.35 0.65 0.80
Below Average Importance – BAI 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65
Average Importance – AI 0.45 0.55 0.45 0.55
Above Average Importance – AAI 0.55 0.65 0.35 0.45
High Importance – HI 0.65 0.80 0.20 0.35
Very High Importance – VHI 0.80 0.90 0.10 0.20
Certainly High Importance – CHI 0.90 1.00 0.00 0.00
Exactly Equal – EE 0.1965 0.1965 0.1965 0.1965

�
Table 3. Pairwise comparison matrix X = xjj n�n
.
C1 ... Cn
� �
C1 h½0:1965; 0:1965�; ½0:1965; 0:1965�i ... h μL1m ; μU1m ; ½νL1m ; νU1m �i
.. .. .. ..
. � �. . .
Cn h μLm1 ; μUm1 ; ½νLm1 ; νUm1 �i ... h½0:1965; 0:1965�; ½0:1965; 0:1965�i

evaluation of hospital service (Yucesan & Gul, 2020). By applying the linguistic terms, a
pairwise comparison for evaluation criteria is made to the weights of criteria using the
IVPFN. The weighting scale IVPF-AHP is presented in Table 2.
A basic concept related to IVPF-AHP is shown in the following
� steps.
Step 1. Construct the pairwise comparison matrix X = xjj n�n with respect to each
expert opinion based on Table 3. �
Step 2. Compute the differences matrix D = djk n�n between lower and upper values
of the membership and non-membership functions by using Equation 13 and
Equation 14),

djkL ¼ μ2jkL ν2jkU ; (13)

djkU ¼ μ2jkU ν2jkL : (14)

�
Step 3. Find the interval multiplicative matrix S = Sjk n�n
by using Equation 15 and
Equation 16),
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sjk L ¼ 1000dL ; (15)

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1000dU :
Sjk U ¼ (16)
�
Step 4. Calculate the determinacy value τ ¼ τ jk n�n of xjk by using Equation 17,

τ jk ¼ 1 ðμ2jkU μ2jkL Þ ðν2jkU ν2jkL Þ: (17)

�
Step 5. Multiply the determinacy degrees with the S = Sjk n�n matrix for obtaining the
�
matrix of weights, T = tjk m�m , before normalization using Equation 18,
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 237

SjkL þ SjkU
tjk ¼ ð Þτ jk : (18)
2

Step 6. Find the normalized priority weights (wj ) by using Equation 19,
Pn
tjk
wj ¼ Pn k¼1
Pn : (19)
i¼1 k¼1 tjk

3.3. Obtaining the rating of readiness for IIoT adoption

The IVPFS procedure for rating the readiness of IIoT adoption is presented below
(Malviya & Kant, 2016):

3.3.1. Step 1: Identify the rating of readiness criteria for IIoT adoption
By using the linguistic term and corresponding IVPFN in Table 1, the decision-makers
(Ei , i = 1, 2, . . ., m) are requested to provide their rating of readiness for IIoT adoption
�
with respect to each criteria (Cj )j = 1,2,. . .,n. The decision matrix R = rij m�n is
constructed as follows:

E1 E2 E3 ��� Em
0 1 1
C1 ~x11 ~x21 ~x31 � � � ~xm1
B
C2 B ~x2 ~x22 ~x32 � � � ~xm2
C
C
B .. C
~ ¼ C3 B ~x13
X ~x23 ~x33 m
. ~x3 C; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; (20)
.. B
B
C
C
. @ ... ..
.
..
.
..
.
..
. A
Cn ~x1 ~x2n ~x3n � � � ~xm
n n

where m represents the number of decision-makers and n is the number of readiness

h i h i
criteria, rij = h μLij ; μUij ; νLij ; νUij i indicate the fuzzy performance value of the jth criterion

assessed by the ith decision-maker.

3.3.2. Step 2: Construct aggregated matrix

According to decision matrix R in Step 1, the interval-valued Pythagorean Fuzzy
Weighted Geometric (IVPFWG) operator is applied to aggregate IVPFN into group by
using Equation (7) and DMs weights are calculated by Equation (8).

3.3.3. Step 3: Defuzzifying the aggregated IVPFN

The aggregated IVPFN from Step 2 is defuzzied into crisp values by Equation (11).
238 D. SUMRIT

3.4. Determining the overall readiness degree of IIoT adoption

By applying the concept proposed by Malviya & Kant (2016), the overall readiness degree
of IIoT adoption (Z) is determined by multiplying the weights of readiness criteria and
possible rating of readiness for IIoT adoption, by the following formula:

X
n
Zread ¼ rj wj ; (21)
j¼1

where rj denotes the possible rating of readiness IIoT adoption regarding the jth
criteria and wj represents the weight of the jth readiness criterion. As the possibility of
readiness is known, the readiness degree is known, the unreadiness degree is simulta­
neous calculated as follows:

~¼1
Z Z read (22)

As discussion with experts, the overall readiness degree is less than 0.6 indicates that an
organization is unready to adopt IIoT.

4. Empirical case study

4.1. Problem description
To demonstrate the application of the proposed framework, an empirical case study of a
Thai agro-food processing manufacturer was conducted. The case company (denoted as
ABC) conducted for this study is one of the leading agro-processed food product
manufacturers in Thailand. Company ABC produces semicooked and cooked meats,
ready-made meals, and other food products and provides breeding and farming services.
It has been listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand since 2001. At present, company has
total revenues of over 18 billion Thai Baht, with 15 subsidiary group companies and more
than 12,000 employees in nationwide and abroad. To maintain a long-term competition
in the global market, the managerial staff of ABC company are considering to upgrade
the manufacturing technology by adopting IIoT. However, an IIoT investment is a
critical decision because it is extremely costly in terms of money, time, and risk. The
evaluation of IIoT adoption readiness including an appropriate framework for self-
assessment is then very essential for management. Therefore, this article proposes a
group decision-making framework under the IVPFS approach to evaluate the degree of
readiness of IIoT adoption. The following shows how ABC company employs the
proposed framework to evaluate the readiness.

4.2. Proposed framework for evaluating readiness degree for IIoT adoption
The proposed framework for evaluating the readiness degree for IIoT adoption in
manufacturing enterprises is divided into seven phases, as displayed in Figure 1.
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 239

Figure 1. The proposed framework for evaluating the readiness degree for IIoT adoption

4.2.1. Phase I: form a qualified panel of experts

In this phase, a panel of experts is established, which comprises three managerial staff
from different companies, which succeed in implementing IIoT, one academician, and
one industrial expert. All of them have knowledge and experiences in IIoT including
other advance manufacturing technologies projects implementation. The qualifications
of each expert (E) are shown in Table 4.
240 D. SUMRIT

Table 4. Experts’ experience and qualification.

Expert Experience
(E) (years) Position Organization Area of expertise
E1 18 Factory manager Automotive company Production management
E2 11 Production engineering Precision machining company Advance manufacturing
director technology
E3 9 Chief technology Food processing company Technology management
officer
E4 12 Academician Engineering department of a research Additive manufacturing
university
E5 21 Industrial expert Industrial promotion department of a Industrial technology
government agency development

Figure 2. Decision model for evaluating the readiness degree for IIoT adoption.

4.2.2. Phase II: Identify and validate the readiness criteria of IIoT readiness to adopt
Based on extant literature review, twelve criteria related to organizational readiness for
IIoT adoption are identified as shown in Section 2. The panel of experts is invited to a
brainstorming session. Twelve criteria and their descriptions are presented to the panel
of experts, and then each of experts justifies the eligibility of criteria. After several
rounds of scrutiny, the experts agree upon to use the twelve criteria for this research.

4.2.3. Phase III: Formulate a decision model

Based on the result from Phase II, a decision model for evaluating the readiness degree
for IIoT adoption is formulated as shown in Figure 2.

4.2.4. Phase IV: Compute the significant weight of each expert

In this study, the significant weight of each expert is determined based on his/her (i)
relevant experience in advance manufacturing technology implementation, (ii) technical
knowledge in IIoT, and (iii) the organizational position of the expert. By using the
linguistic terms in Table 1, the importance of each expert is assessed and then converted
to corresponding IVPFN. By utilizing Equation (8), the significant weight of each expert
is computed and the results are shown in Table 5. A sample computation of expert 1 (λ1 )
is illustrated as follows:
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 241

Table 5. The significant weight of each expert.

Expert Linguistic terms μL μU νL νU πL πU λ λk
E1 G 0.700 0.800 0.15 0.250 0.698 0.545 0.385 0.186
E2 G 0.700 0.800 0.15 0.250 0.698 0.545 0.385 0.186
E3 VG 0.800 0.950 0.00 0.150 0.600 0.273 0.586 0.283
E4 M 0.550 0.700 0.250 0.400 0.796 0.591 0.322 0.156
E5 G 0.700 0.800 0.150 0.250 0.698 0.545 0.385 0.186

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
2 ½ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2 �
λ1 ¼ 0:186 ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
2 ½ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2 � þ 12 ½ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2 �
q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
þ 12 ½ð1 0:600Þ2 þ ð1 0:273Þ2 � þ 12 ½ð1 0:796Þ2 þ ð1 0:591Þ2 �
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
þ 12 ½ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2 �:

The remaining computations of significant weight of other experts are displayed in

Appendix II.

4.2.5. Phase V: Determine the relative importance weights of criteria

In this stage, the twelve criteria are weighted based on pairwise comparison with the IVPF-
AHP method as described in Section 3.2. By using linguistic terms from Table 2, each
expert is requested to assess the relative importance of the twelve criteria based on pairwise
comparisons. Thereafter, the linguistic terms are converted into their equivalent IVPFN.
By using Table 3, a pairwise comparison is constructed. As the important ratings of these
decisionmakers are different, therefore, the aggregated pairwise comparison of experts’
subjective judgments is required by utilizing Equation (7), and the result is shown in Table
6. Equation 13 to Equation 19 are used to compute the relative importance weight of each
evaluation criterion, and the results are demonstrated in Table 7–10, i.e. the different lower
and upper values of membership and nonmembership functions, the interval multiplica­
tive matrix, the determinacy value, and the normalized priority weights, respectively. As
seen in Table 10, the ranking of relative importance weights in descending order is as
follows: C1(0.280) > C9(0.178) > C11(0.128) > C4(0.117) > C6(0.109) > C2(0.061) > C3
(0.028) > C8(0.026) > C7(0.024) > C10(0.016) > C12(0.015) � C5 (0.015).

Table 6. The aggregated pairwise comparison of experts.

C1 C2 C12
μL μU νL νU μL μU νL νU μL μU νL νU
C1 0.196 0.196 0.197 0.197 0.785 0.902 0.123 0.226 ... 0.771 0.893 0.134 0.242
C2 0.187 0.309 0.696 0.817 0.196 0.196 0.197 0.197 ... 0.395 0.547 0.480 0.626
C3 0.200 0.350 0.650 0.800 0.482 0.582 0.420 0.520 ... 0.450 0.550 0.450 0.550
C4 0.450 0.550 0.450 0.550 0.650 0.800 0.200 0.350 ... 0.703 0.805 0.224 0.315
C5 0.200 0.350 0.650 0.800 0.200 0.350 0.650 0.800 ... 0.450 0.550 0.450 0.550
C6 0.000 0.000 0.822 1.000 0.702 0.836 0.170 0.304 ... 0.650 0.800 0.200 0.350
C7 0.200 0.350 0.650 0.800 0.516 0.632 0.381 0.490 ... 0.516 0.632 0.381 0.490
C8 0.284 0.409 0.592 0.719 0.384 0.485 0.517 0.617 ... 0.510 0.610 0.392 0.492
C9 0.450 0.550 0.450 0.550 0.740 0.861 0.146 0.268 ... 0.740 0.861 0.146 0.268
C10 0.200 0.350 0.650 0.800 0.270 0.414 0.591 0.734 ... 0.566 0.695 0.323 0.441
C11 0.450 0.550 0.450 0.550 0.650 0.800 0.200 0.350 ... 0.650 0.800 0.200 0.350
C12 0.100 0.200 0.800 0.900 0.264 0.408 0.596 0.741 ... 0.196 0.196 0.197 0.197
242 D. SUMRIT

Table 7. The differences between lower (djkL Þ and upper (djkU Þ values of membership and nonmember­
ship functions
C1 C2 C3 C11 C12
d1L d1U d2L d2U d3L d3U d11L d11U d12L d12U
C1 0.000 0.000 0.565 0.799 0.300 0.000 ... 0.394 0.597 0.535 0.779
C2 −0.632 −0.388 0.000 0.000 0.165 0.163 ... −0.574 −0.299 −0.236 0.069
C3 −0.600 −0.301 −0.038 0.163 0.000 0.600 ... −0.673 −0.406 −0.101 0.099
C4 −0.101 0.099 0.300 0.600 0.300 −0.301 ... −0.479 −0.189 0.396 0.598
C5 −0.600 −0.301 −0.600 −0.301 0.018 0.670 ... −1.000 −0.759 −0.101 0.099
C6 −1.000 −0.676 0.400 0.670 0.300 0.254 ... −0.466 −0.177 0.300 0.600
C7 −0.600 −0.301 0.026 0.254 0.018 −0.032 ... −0.661 −0.431 0.026 0.254
C8 −0.436 −0.183 −0.233 −0.032 −0.101 0.720 ... −0.369 −0.046 0.018 0.219
C9 −0.101 0.099 0.476 0.720 0.300 −0.177 ... 0.126 0.379 0.476 0.720
C10 −0.600 −0.301 −0.466 −0.177 −0.345 0.600 ... −0.800 −0.600 0.126 0.379
C11 −0.101 0.099 0.300 0.600 0.300 −0.189 ... 0.000 0.000 0.300 0.600
C12 −0.800 −0.600 −0.479 −0.189 −0.479 0.000 ... −0.479 −0.189 0.000 0.000

�
Table 8. The interval multiplicative matrix S = Sjk n�n
C1 C2 C3 C11 C12
S1L S1U S 2L S 2U S 3L S3U S11L S11U S12L S12U
C1 0.999 0.999 7.048 15.792 2.814 0.999 ... 3.900 7.860 6.348 14.748
C2 0.113 0.261 0.999 0.999 1.765 1.754 ... 0.138 0.356 0.443 1.267
C3 0.126 0.354 0.877 1.754 0.999 7.934 ... 0.098 0.246 0.707 1.410
C4 0.707 1.410 2.814 7.934 2.814 0.354 ... 0.191 0.521 3.920 7.880
C5 0.126 0.354 0.126 0.354 1.066 10.105 ... 0.032 0.073 0.707 1.410
C6 0.032 0.097 3.987 10.105 2.814 2.408 ... 0.200 0.542 2.814 7.934
C7 0.126 0.354 1.094 2.408 1.066 0.895 ... 0.102 0.226 1.094 2.408
C8 0.222 0.532 0.447 0.895 0.707 12.031 ... 0.280 0.853 1.066 2.131
C9 0.707 1.410 5.175 12.031 2.814 0.542 ... 1.544 3.702 5.175 12.031
C10 0.126 0.354 0.200 0.542 0.303 7.934 ... 0.063 0.126 1.544 3.702
C11 0.707 1.410 2.814 7.934 2.814 0.521 ... 0.999 0.999 2.814 7.934
C12 0.063 0.126 0.191 0.521 0.191 1.000 ... 0.191 0.521 0.999 0.999

�
Table 9. The determinacy value τ ¼ τjk n�n
of xjk
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12
C1 0.923 0.736 0.620 0.536 0.726 0.666 0.668 0.620 0.801 0.713 0.666 0.720
C2 −0.212 0.923 0.558 −0.146 0.780 −0.290 −0.048 0.620 −0.401 0.278 −0.148 0.235
C3 −0.146 0.447 0.923 −0.146 0.447 −0.146 0.474 0.322 −0.374 0.164 −0.257 0.395
C4 0.395 0.620 0.620 0.923 0.620 −0.001 0.620 0.668 0.067 0.620 −0.001 0.698
C5 −0.146 −0.146 0.492 −0.290 0.923 −0.290 −0.374 0.090 −0.759 −0.146 −0.759 0.395
C6 −0.676 0.673 0.620 0.395 0.673 0.923 0.620 0.583 0.395 0.620 0.014 0.620
C7 −0.146 0.481 0.492 −0.374 0.538 −0.146 0.923 0.092 0.090 0.583 −0.262 0.481
C8 0.046 0.265 0.395 −0.146 0.492 −0.137 0.395 0.923 −0.290 0.492 0.090 0.492
C9 0.395 0.713 0.620 0.583 0.673 0.538 0.713 0.673 0.923 0.713 0.538 0.713
C10 −0.146 0.014 0.146 −0.146 0.492 −0.481 0.265 0.265 −0.290 0.923 −0.481 0.538
C11 0.395 0.620 0.620 0.447 0.780 0.447 0.602 0.620 0.395 0.620 0.923 0.620
C12 −0.481 −0.001 −0.001 −0.259 0.474 −0.001 0.395 0.474 0.022 0.474 −0.001 0.923

4.2.6. Phase VI: Determine the possible rating of readiness for IIoT adoption
To explore the real situation of the case company, five decision-makers (DMs) from ABC
company (one factory manager, one general manager from engineering department, one
general manager from information and communication technology department, and two
Table 10. The normalized priority weights (wj )
m
P
tik
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 k¼1 wi Ranking
C1 0.922 8.404 1.182 2.504 8.023 3.917 4.599 3.331 15.529 6.134 3.917 7.595 66.058 0.280 1
C2 −0.040 0.922 0.982 −0.328 9.270 −0.045 −0.015 3.331 −0.046 0.328 −0.036 0.201 14.523 0.062 6
C3 −0.035 0.588 4.122 −0.082 0.588 −0.035 0.792 0.263 −0.046 0.092 −0.044 0.418 6.620 0.028 7
C4 0.418 3.331 0.982 4.122 3.331 0.000 3.331 4.599 0.035 3.331 0.000 4.115 27.592 0.117 4
C5 −0.035 −0.035 2.750 −0.322 0.922 −0.045 −0.046 0.051 −0.040 −0.035 −0.040 0.418 3.543 0.015 12
C6 −0.043 4.741 1.618 1.705 4.741 0.922 3.331 1.684 0.418 3.331 0.005 3.331 25.783 0.109 5
C7 −0.035 0.842 0.483 −0.413 1.412 −0.035 0.922 0.054 0.051 1.684 −0.043 0.842 5.763 0.024 9
C8 0.017 0.178 2.513 −0.112 0.787 −0.030 0.418 0.922 −0.045 0.787 0.051 0.787 6.273 0.027 8
C9 0.418 6.134 1.040 2.835 4.741 1.412 6.134 4.741 0.922 6.134 1.412 6.134 42.057 0.178 2
C10 −0.035 0.005 0.601 −0.065 0.787 −0.045 0.178 0.178 −0.045 0.922 −0.045 1.412 3.847 0.016 10
C11 0.418 3.331 1.033 1.970 9.270 0.588 2.265 3.331 0.418 3.331 0.922 3.331 30.206 0.128 3
C12 −0.045 0.000 −0.001 −0.081 0.792 0.000 0.418 0.792 0.006 0.792 0.000 0.922 3.594 0.015 11
PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH
243
244 D. SUMRIT

Table 11. The aggregation of rating values and defuzzified values.

Aggregated Defuzzified
DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5 values value
C1 ([0.80,0.95], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.55,0.70], ([0.685,0.805], 0.687
[0.00,0.15]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.25,0.40]) [0.161,0.272])
C2 ([0.70,0.80], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.55,0.70], ([0.55,0.70], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.629,0.754], 0.462
[0.15,0.25]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.25,0.40]) [0.25,0.40]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.200,0.326])
C3 ([0.45,0.55], ([0.30,0.45], ([0.30,0.45], ([0.20,0.30], ([0.45,0.55], ([0.327,0.454], 0.233
[0.40,0.55]) [0.55,0.70]) [0.55,0.70]) [0.70,0.80]) [0.40,0.55]) [0.536,0.676])
C4 ([0.45,0.55], ([0.45,0.55], ([0.30,0.45], ([0.45,0.55], ([0.55,0.70], ([0.416,0.543], 0.300
[0.40,0.55]) [0.40,0.55]) [0.55,0.70]) [0.40,0.55]) [0.25,0.40]) [0.432,0.582])
C5 ([0.70,0.80], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.55,0.70], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.55,0.70], ([0.624,0.751], 0.336
[0.15,0.25]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.25,0.40]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.25,0.40]) [0.203,0.331])
C6 ([0.30,0.45], ([0.20,0.30], ([0.30,0.45], ([0.20,0.30], ([0.20,0.30], ([0.241,0.362], 0.361
[0.55,0.70]) [0.70,0.80]) [0.55,0.70]) [0.70,0.80]) [0.70,0.80]) [0.639,0.759])
C7 ([0.70,0.80], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.55,0.70], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.653,0.770], 0.617
[0.15,0.25]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.25,0.40]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.184,0.302])
C8 ([0.45,0.55], ([0.55,0.70], ([0.45,0.55], ([0.45,0.55], ([0.30,0.45], ([0.653,0.770], 0.490
[0.40,0.55]) [0.25,0.40]) [0.40,0.55]) [0.40,0.55]) [0.55,0.70]) [0.184,0.302])
C9 ([0.20,0.30], ([0.20,0.30], ([0.20,0.30], ([0.45,0.55], ([0.45,0.55], ([0.263,0.368], 0.376
[0.70,0.80]) [0.70,0.80]) [0.70,0.80]) [0.40,0.55]) [0.40,0.55]) [0.628,0.740])
C10 ([0.55,0.70], ([0.45,0.55], ([0.55,0.70], ([0.30,0.45], ([0.30,0.45], ([0.430,0.574], 0.450
[0.25,0.40]) [0.40,0.55]) [0.25,0.40]) [0.55,0.70]) [0.55,0.70]) [0.412,0.562])
C11 ([0.20,0.30], ([0.45,0.55], ([0.30,0.45], ([0.20,0.30], ([0.30,0.45], ([0.281,0.406], 0.372
[0.70,0.80]) [0.40,0.55]) [0.55,0.70]) [0.70,0.80]) [0.55,0.70]) [0.592,0.721])
C12 ([0.70,0.80], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.55,0.70], ([0.70,0.80], ([0.673,0.783], 0.262
[0.15,0.25]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.25,0.40]) [0.15,0.25]) [0.169,0.280])

production managers) are asked to conduct self-assessment of their organization. Based

on readiness criteria in Phase I, each decision-maker provides his/her rating of readiness
for IIoT adoption with respect to each evaluation criterion by using linguistic terms in
Table 1. Subsequently, the linguistic terms are transformed into their corresponding
IVPFN. By using Equation (7), the aggregations of rating values are obtained and
presented in Table 11. In this case, the importance weights of decision-makers are
assumed to be equal (λk ¼ 0:2, k =1,2,3, . . .,5). Thereafter, each aggregated rating value
in Table 11 is defuzzied into crisp value by Equation 11.

4.2.7. Phase VII: Obtain the overall readiness degree of IIoT adoption
The overall readiness degree of IIoT adoption of ABC company (ZABC) is obtained by
multiplying the weights of criteria with their respect readiness rating values as shown in
Table 12. According to Table 12, (ZABC) is 0.461 (or 46.1%); meanwhile, the overall
unreadiness degree is 0.539. The computations of overall readiness/unreadiness degrees
are illustrated as follows:
read
ZABC = (0.280 � 0.687) +(0.061 � 0.462) + (0.028 � 0.233) + . . . +(0.015 �
0.262) = 0.461
~ = 1-Z read = 1–0.461 = 0.539.
Z ABC
Table 12 also shows the overall readiness degree of a food processing manufacturer who
has successfully implemented IIoT. The overall readiness degree of successful company
read read
(Zsuccess ) is 0.648 (or 64.8%), and the computation Zsuccess is illustrated as follows:
read
Zsuccess = (0.280 � 0.850) +(0.061 � 0.638) + (0.028 � 0.693) + . . . +(0.015 �
0.448) = 0.648.
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 245

Table 12. The overall readiness degree of IIoT adoption.

% Gap
values of
readiness
ABC Company Success Company Degree*
�
Readiness criteria Weight wj Rating Readiness Rating Readiness degree
read
score degree score (Zsuccess =
j read j j
ðrABC ) ZABC = ðrsuccess ) rsuccess � wj )
j
rABC � wj
Top management commitment and 0.280 0.687 0.192 0.850 0.238 19.32
support (C1)
Financial capability (C2) 0.062 0.462 0.028 0.638 0.039 28.20
Managing cyber security and privacy 0.028 0.233 0.006 0.692 0.019 68.42
(C3)
Digital business model development 0.116 0.300 0.035 0.587 0.068 48.53
capability (C4)
Technology infrastructure capability 0.015 0.336 0.005 0.638 0.009 44.44
(C5)
Change management capability (C6) 0.109 0.361 0.039 0.554 0.060 35.00
Data management and analytics 0.024 0.617 0.015 0.660 0.016 6.25
capabilities (C7)
Seamless value-chain integration 0.027 0.490 0.013 0.589 0.015 13.33
capability (C8)
Strategic technology roadmap for 0.178 0.376 0.067 0.532 0.094 28.72
digitalization (C9)
Employees digital knowledge 0.016 0.450 0.007 0.673 0.010 30.00
capabilities (C10)
Digital culture readiness (C11) 0.128 0.372 0.047 0.533 0.068 30.88
Lean practice implementation (C12) 0.015 0.262 0.003 0.448 0.006 50.00
Overall readiness degree 0.461 (46.10%) 0.648 (64.8%)
read read
(ZABC ) (Zsuccess )
Overall unreadiness degree 0.539 (53.9%) 0.352 (35.2%)
read read
(1- ZABC ) (1-Zsuccess )

jZsuccess
read read
ZABC j�100
*Note: % Gap values of readiness Degree = read
Zsuccess

5. Discussions of findings
The findings of all results in terms of the relavie importance weights, readiness degree,
and % Gap values of readiness degree between ABC company and success company can
be summarized in Table 13. The discussions of overall evaluation of readiness degree, the
readiness degree evaluation of case company, and a benchmarking study are explained in
subsection 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, respectively.

5.1. Relative importance weight of readiness factors

According to a proposed decision model of this research, twelve criteria were extracted
from the extensive literature review and confirmed by a group of experts. It is to
evaluate the readiness degree to IIoT adoption in manufacturing enterprises. The
findings from Table 10 displayed that the three most important readiness criteria in
terms of the relative importance weights are ‘top management commitment and
support (C1)’, ‘strategic technology roadmap for digitalization (C9)’ and ‘digital culture
readiness (C11)’. This means that these readiness criteria are considered as the most
critical factors and need to be addressed by firms on the highest priority for
246 D. SUMRIT

Table 13. Summary of result comparisons

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 Overall
readiness
degree
value
Weight 0.28 0.062 0.028 0.116 0.015 0.109 0.024 0.027 0.178 0.016 0.128 0.015 -
ABC company

Rating 0.687 0.462 0.233 0.300 0.336 0.361 0.617 0.490 0.376 0.450 0.372 0.262 -
score
Readiness 0.192 0.028 0.006 0.035 0.005 0.039 0.015 0.013 0.067 0.007 0.047 0.003 0.461
degree (46.1%)

Rating 0.850 0.638 0.692 0.587 0.638 0.554 0.660 0.589 0.532 0.673 0.533 0.448
Success company

score
Readiness 0.238 0.039 0.019 0.068 0.009 0.060 0.016 0.015 0.094 0.010 0.068 0.006 0.648
degree (64.8%)

% Gap values of 19.32 28.20 68.42 48.53 44.44 36.00 6.25 13.33 28.72 30.00 30.88 50.00
reading
degree
Ranking 10 9 1 3 4 5 12 11 8 7 6 2

improvement. Through the degree of importantce assigned by each experts’ opinions,

‘top management commitment and support’ (C1) is the first priority to develop, among
twelve criteria. Previous research also showed that the top management criterion is
broadly recognized as an important factor for advanced manufacturing technology
adoption through firms’ strategic goals (Sony & Naik, 2019). Also, it plays a vital role in
allocating sufficient financial support and essential resources to new technologies
implementation effort. Then, a success of technological projects implementation heav­
ily relies on top management commitment and support (Sony & Naik, 2019).
Moreover, the positive attitude of top management toward adopting new technology
can mitigate the changing resistance of employees.
Next, based on the relative importance weights, the ‘strategic technology roadmap
for digitalization’ (C9) shows the second rank for a core evaluating criterion of the
IIoT adoption readiness. This result is consistent with the finding of Ghobakhloo
(2018), identifying that a strategic technology roadmap is the most determinant of
smart manufacturing technologies adoption. Also, it can direct manufacturers to
develop and implement future technologies for competitive advantages (Raj et al.,
2020).
Then, ‘digital culture readiness’ (C11) is the third ranked readiness criteria to IIoT
adoption in lights of the relative importance weights. Digital culture readiness is to
mutually share values and practices in digital product innovation to workforces under
environment changes. It is also considered as one of the essential factors to encourage a
whole organization to realize the merits of digital adoption toward firm’s competitiveness
(Martinez-Caro et al., (2020)). The relationship of technology and culture is influenced
by one another (Duerr et al., 2018). As digital technology is rapidly developed and
transformed, cultures also change, especially by human influences. The congruence
between organizational digital culture and a new technologies introduction allows
firms to fully exploit the potential benefits of digital technologies adoption Duerr et al.,
2018).
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 247

5.2. The readiness degree evaluation of case company

j
Regarding Table 12, the rating score ðrABC ) of each readiness criterion of ABC company
shows the degree of readiness to adopt IIoT of ABC company. The lower the rating score it is,
the higher the improvement it takes. In this research, it is found that top three worst readiness
factors with the lowest scores are ‘lean practice implementation (C12)’, ‘technology infra­
structure capability (C5)’, and ‘managing cyber security and privacy (C3)’, with values of
0.003, 0.005, and 0.006, respectively. Hence, when taking into an account, ABC company first
needs to accelerately improve these three readiness criteria in a stepwise manner.
Moreover, the bottom line of Table 12 shows that the overall readiness degree value of
read
ABC company (ZABC ) is quite low, equaling to 0.461 or 46.1%, which is less than 50%.
Based on the overall readiness scores of ABC company, it may not be ready to adopt IIoT
in a moment. However, it is expected that after improvement of those weak readiness
criteria, ABC company will be more readily available to adopt IIoT.

5.3. A benchmarking study

Regarding Table 12, the results also demonstrate the different scores of each readiness
criterion of both ABC company and a reference success company, which is in the same
industry as ABC company. From overview of comparisons, the results show that the
read
overall readiness degree value of a success company (Zsuccess ) is 0.648 (or 64.8%), while
that of ABC company is 0.461 (or 46.1%). Therefore, it can be concluded that the
reference company has a higher readiness level of IIoT adoption than ABC company
has. In the same way, the reference company is ready to adopt IIoT but not for ABC
company. When further analyzing, it shows that each score of readiness criteria of ABC
company is also totally lower than that of a reference company. The difference of each
readiness score between two companies is computed in terms of % gap values of
readiness degree, as presented in the last column of Table 12. The results from the
benchmark for gap values between two companies indicate that ‘managing cyber security
and privacy (C3)’, ‘lean practice implementation (C12)’, and ‘digital business model
development capability (C4) are the highest three percentage gap values of 68.42, 50.00,
and 48.53, respectively. Thus, ABC company can simultaneously consider these bench­
marking values to improve the readiness factors.
The more the % gap values obtained, the higher improvement of readiness criteria is
required. For example, the readiness criteria degree of managing cyber security and
privacy (C3) for ABC company is 0.006, while that of the reference company is 0.019.
Then, the % gap value is shown 68.42%, which is the also highest gap value among other
readiness criteria. This implies that ABC company must pay its first and highest attention
to improve the cyber security management and privacy. The comparison of readiness
indexes between both companies is depicted in Figure 3.

6. Managerial implications
Since the readiness of manufacturing organization is a key driver for a success of IIoT
adoption, the results of this study provide substantial implications for practitioners, aiming
to adopt IIoT. The proposed systematic framework could guide managers to evaluate the
248 D. SUMRIT

Figure 3. Readiness factor degree between the success company and ABC company.

organizational readiness and prioritize the areas for improvement. The twelve key readi­
ness factors are identified, which would help manufactures understand what efforts and
resources they have to invest. By considering the relative importance of the readiness
factors, this study recommends that top management should provide strong support and
formulate clear strategies for achieving a higher degree of IIoT adoption.
In addition, top management plays pivotal roles in initiating strategic technology
roadmap, fostering digital culture, and driving the change management of transition to
IIoT adoption. The development of a precise strategic technology roadmap will provide
and address the effective ways to initiate collaboration and integration among key
suppliers. This roadmap is also to assist managers to prepare the physical infrastructure,
workforce capabilities, and internal cross-functions integration. Regarding digital cul­
ture, the practitioners strongly need to cultivate a digital culture that can reduce orga­
nizational opposition and encourage collaboration in adoption IIoT. In the context of
case company, managers can use this proposed methodological framework for self-
assessment to pinpoint the areas that significantly need an improvement. As compared
to a success company, the results indicate that cybersecurity and privacy management,
and lean practice implementation are the two most vulnerable areas for case company.

7. Conclusion
The adoption of IIoT technology enables manufacturing enterprises to reduce produc­
tion costs, generate additional revenues, strengthen business relationships with custo­
mers, and increase asset utilization. Despite the enormous benefits of adopting IIoT
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 249

technologies, it is a complex, time-consuming, costly process and has a high failure rate.
As a result, most manufacturing enterprises are reluctant to adopt IIoT without evidence
of their readiness. To increase the effectiveness and success of IIoT adoption in the
manufacturing sector, this study proposes a quantitative framework to evaluate the
readiness level of IIoT technology implementation. This proposed framework is devel­
oped for a general IIoT adoption for manufacturing enterprises. To reduce the uncer­
tainty and ambiguity of human judgment in the decision-making process, the IVPFS
approach is applied to resolve these problems. Through literature review, the twelve
readiness criteria are determined and validated by a panel of experts from industries,
government agencies, and academics sectors. The relative importance weights of readi­
ness criteria are derived by deploying the IVPF-AHP approach. This study reveals that
top management commitment and support, strategic technology roadmap for digitaliza­
tion, and digital culture readiness are the three most important readiness factors. Also, an
empirical study of food processing manufacturers in Thailand is presented by measuring
the readiness degree for IIoT adoption. The results indicate that the overall readiness
degree is 46.1% compared to one of the success in the same industry, 64.8%. Based on
evaluation results, it suggests that the case company was not ready to adopt IIoT.

8. Future research
For future research, this study suggests several guidelines or directions including (i) to
explore the inter-relationships between criteria; (ii) to conduct a comparative study by
applying the neutrosophic fuzzy approach; (iii) a proposed framework can be applied in
other industrial cases such as automobile industry, pharmaceutical industry, etc.; and (iv)
this proposed application can be extended to evaluate the readiness of other emerging
technology adoption such as blockchain.

Biographical note
Detcharat Sumrit is currently a lecturer of Faculty of Engineering, Mahidol University, Thailand.
He graduated an Engineering Bachelor degree from Kasetsart University, Thailand. He holds two
Master degrees: Master degree of Engineering from Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, and
MBA from Thammasat University. Also, he obtained PhD from Technopreneurship and
Innovation Management, Chulalongkorn University. His current research interests are in multi-
criteria decision-making (MCDM), project-based management, and innovation and performance
measurement.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Detcharat Sumrit http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3157-6697
250 D. SUMRIT

References
Bakioglu, G., & Atahan, A. O. (2021). AHP integrated TOPSIS and VIKOR methods with
pythagorean fuzzy sets to prioritize risks in self-driving vehicles. Applied Soft Computing
Journal, 99, February, 106948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106948
Ben-Daya, M., Hassini, E., & Bahroun, Z. (2017). Internet of things and supply chain management:
A literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 57(15–16), 4719–4742. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402140.
Bogicevic, V., Bujisic, M., Bilgihan, A., Yang, W., & Cobanoglu, C. (2017). The impact of traveler-
focused airport technology on traveler satisfaction. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
123, October, 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.038
Breunig, M., Kelly, R., Mathis, R., & Wee, D. (2016). Getting the Most Out of Industry 4.0. Retrieved
October 26, 2020, from. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-
insights/industry-40-looking-beyond-the-initial-hype Mckinsey & Company
Bruijn, H., & Janssen, M. (2017). Building cybersecurity awareness: the need for evidence-based
framing strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.
2017.02.007
Buer, S. V., Strandhagen, J. O., & Chan, F. T. (2018). The link between industry 4.0 and lean
manufacturing: mapping current research and establishing a research agenda. International
Journal of Production Research, 56(8), 2924–2940. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.
1442945 .
Bughin, J., & van Zeebroeck, N. (). The best response to digital disruption. MIT Sloan Management
Review 26 october 2020 https://sloanrview.mit.edu/article/the-right-response-to-digital-disrup
tion ,),
Büschgens, T., Bausch, A., & Balkin, D. B. (2013). Organizational culture and innovation: A meta
analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(4), 763–781. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jpim.12021
Dalenogare, L. S., Benitez, G. B., Ayala, N. F., & Frank, A. G. (2018). The expected contribution of
industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance. International Journal of Production
Economics, 204(C), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.019
Davis, J., Edgar, T., Graybill, R., Korambath, P., Schott, B., Swink, D., Wetzel, J., & Wetzel, J.
(2015). Smart manufacturing. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 6(1),
141–160. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-061114-123255
Díaz, M., Martín, C., & Rubio, B. (2016). State-of-the-art, challenges, and open issues in the
integration of internet of things and cloud computing. Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, 67(May), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2016.01.010
Du, Y., Hou, F., Zafar, W., Yu, Q., & Zhai, Y. (2017). A novel method for multiattribute decision
making with interval-valued pythagorean fuzzy linguistic information. International Journal of
Intelligent Systems, 32(10), 1085–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21881
Duerr, S., Holotiuk, F., Wagner, H.T., Beimborn, D., & Weitzel, T. (2018). What is digital
organizational culture? insights from exploratory case studies. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, (pp. 5126–5135). HICSS 2018. https://
doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.640 ISBN: 978-09981331-1-9
Fischer, C., & Pöhler, A. (2018). Supporting the change to digitalized production environments
through learning organization development. In C. Harteis (Ed.), The impact of digitalization in
the workplace: an educational view (pp. 141–160). Springer International Publishing.
Frank, A. G., Mendes, G. H. S., Ayala, N. F., & Ghezzi, A. (2019). Servitization and industry 4.0
convergence in the digital transformation of product firms: A business model innovation
perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, April, 341–351. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.014 .
Gangwar, H., Date, H., & Ramaswamy, R. (2015). Understanding determinants of cloud comput­
ing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 28(1), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2013-0065
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 251

Genpact Research Institute (2016) Industrial internet and lean digitalSM: generating “machine to
P&LSM” impact. https://www.genpact.com/downloadable-content/industrial-internet-and-
lean-digital-generating-machine-to-p-and-l-impact.pdf. Accessed on October 11, 2020
Ghanbari, A., Laya, A., Alonso-Zarate, J., & Markendahl, J. (2017). Business development in the
internet of things: A matter of vertical cooperation. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(2),
135–141. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2017.1600596CM
Ghobakhloo, M. (2018). The future of manufacturing industry: A strategic roadmap toward
industry 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(6), 910–936. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JMTM-02-2018-0057
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: Foundations and develop­
ments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0196-8
Gul, M. (2018). Application of pythagorean fuzzy AHP and VIKOR methods in occupational
health and safety risk assessment: The case of a gun and rifle barrel external surface oxidation
and colouring unit. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 26(4), 705–
718. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2018.1492251
Gul, M., & Ak, M. F. (2018). A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational
health and safety risk assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, September, 653–664.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.106
Haktanır, E., & Kahraman, C. (2019). A novel interval-valued pythagorean fuzzy QFD method and
its application to solar photovoltaic technology development. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 132, June 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.04.022
Hasselblatt, M., Huikkola, T., Kohtamäki, M., & Nickell, D. (2018). Modeling manufacturer’s
capabilities for the internet of things. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(6), 822–
836. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-11-2015-0225.
Hecklau, F., Galeitzke, M., Flachs, S., & Kohl, H. (2016). Holistic approach for human resource
management in industry 4.0 6th CLF-6th CIRP Conference on Leanring Factories, Procedia CIRP
29-30 Jun, 2016 Norway, 54, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.102
Horváth, D., & Szabó, R. Z. (2019). 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. September, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.021
Hsu, C. W., & Yeh, C. C. (2017). Understanding the factors affecting the adoption of the Internet of
Things. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 29(9), 1089–1102. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09537325.2016.1269160.
Hughes, B. B., Bohl, D., Irfan, M., Margolese-Malin, E., & Solórzano, J. R. (2017). ICT/Cyber
benefits and costs: Reconciling competing perspectives on the current and future balance.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115(February), 117–130 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.techfore.2016.09.027
IIbahar, E., Karasan, A., Cebi, S., & Kahraman, C. (2018). A novel approach to risk assessment for
occupational health and safety using pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy inference system. Safety
Science, 103(March), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.025
Ikävalko, H., Turkama, P., & Smedlund, A. (2018). Value creation in the internet of things:
Mapping business models and ecosystem roles. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8
(3), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1142
Kache, F., & Seuring, S. (2017). Challenges and opportunities of digital information at the
intersection of big data analytics and supply chain management. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 37(1), 10–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2015-
0078
Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., Parekh, H., & Joshi, S. (2019). Modeling the internet of things
adoption barriers in food retail supply chains. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 48
(May), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.02.020
Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., & Sharma, R. (2018). Analysis of the driving and dependence
power of barriers to adopt industry 4.0 in Indian manufacturing industry. Computers in
Industry, 101(October), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.06.004
252 D. SUMRIT

Karkouch, A., Mousannif, H., Moatassime, H. A., & Noel, T. (2016). A model-driven architecture-
based data quality management framework for the internet of things. Proceedings of 2016, the
2nd international conference on cloud computing technologies and applications, cloud tech 24-26
May 2016, Marrakech, Morocco (pp. 252–259). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/cloudTech.2016.
7847707
Khan, M. A., & Salah, K. (2018). IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open chal­
lenges. Future Generation Computer Systems, 82(May), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
future.2017.11.022
Kiel, D., Arnold, C., & Voigt, K. I. (2017). The influence of the industrial internet of things on
business models of established manufacturing companies – A business level perspective.
Technovation, 68,(December), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.09.003
Kovács, O. (2018). The dark corners of industry 4.0 – Grounding economic governance 2.0.
Technology in Society, 55(November), 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.07.009
Lee, I., & Lee, K. (2015). The internet of things (IoT): Applications, investments, and challenges for
enterprises. Business Horizons, 58(4), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.008
Lerch, C., & Gotsch, M. (2015). Digitalized product-service systems in manufacturing firms: A case
study analysis. Research-Technology Management, 58(5), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.5437/
08956308X5805357
Lokuge, S., Sedera, D., Grover, V., & Xu, D. (2019). Organizational readiness for digital innovation:
development and empirical calibration of a construct. Information & Management, 56(3), 445–
461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.09.001
Lu, Y. (2017). Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues.
Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 6(June), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2017.
04.005
Majeed, A. A., & Rupasinghe, T. D. (2017). Internet of Things (IoT) embedded future supply
chains for industry 4.0: An assessment from an ERP-based fashion apparel and footwear
industry. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 6(1), 25–40.
Malviya, R. K., & Kant, R. (2016). Hybrid decision making approach to predict and measure the
success possibility of green supply chain management implementation. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 135(November), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.046
Martinez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Alfonso-Ruiz, F.J. ((2020)). Digital technologies and
firm performance: the role of digital organisational culture. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 154(May), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119962 119962
Mayr, A., Weigelt, M., Kuhl, A., Grimm, S., Erll, A., Potzel, M., & Franke, J. (2018). Lean 4.0 - A
conceptual conjunction of lean management and industry 4.0. the 51st CIRP Conference on
Manufacturing Systems, Procedia CIRP 16-18 May 2018 Stockholm, Sweden 72 (Procedia
CIRP): 622–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.292
Mital, M., Choudhary, P., Chang, V., Papa, A., & Pani, A. K. (2018). Adoption of Internet of
Things in India: A test of competing models using a structured equation modeling approach.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136(November), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techfore.2017.03.001.
Mohagheghi, V., Mousavi, S. M., Mojtahedi, M., & Newton, S. (2020). Evaluating large, high-
technology project portfolios using a novel interval-valued phygorean fuzzy set framework: an
automated crane project case study. Expert Systems With Applications, 162(December), 113007.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.113007
Müller, J. M., Kiel, D., & Voigt, K. I. (2018). What drives the implementation of industry 4.0? the
role of opportunities and challenges in the context of sustainability. Sustainability, 10(1), 247.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010247
Ng, I., Scharf, K., Pogrebna, G., & Maull, R. (2015). Contextual variety, Internet-of-Things and the
choice of tailoring over platform: Mass customisation strategy in supply chain management.
International Journal of Production Economics, 159(January), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2014.09.007
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 253

Nolich, M., Spoladore, D., Carciotti, S., Buqi, R., & Sacco, M. (2019). Cabin as a home: A novel
comfort optimization framework for IoT equipped smart environments and applications on
cruise ships. Sensors, 19(5), 1060–1084. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19051060
Oliveira, T., Martins, R., Sarker, S., Thomas, M., & Popovič, A. (2019). Understanding SaaS
adoption: The moderating impact of the environment context. International Journal of
Information Management, 49(December), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.009
Ouaddah, A., Mousannif, H., Elkalam, A. A., & Ouahman, A. A. (2017). Access control in the
internet of things: Big challenges and new opportunities. Computer Networks, 112(January),
237–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2016.11.007
Parry, G. C., Brax, S. A., Maull, R. S., & Ng, I. C. L. (2016). Operationalising IoT for reverse supply:
The development of use-visibility measures. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 21(2), 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-10-2015-0386
Peng, X., & Yang, Y. (2016). Fundamental properties of interval-valued pythagorean fuzzy
aggregation operators. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 31(5), 444–487. https://doi.
org/10.1002/int.21790
Perez-Dominguez, L., Alvarado-Iniesta, A., Garca-Alcaraz, J. L., & Valles-Rosales, D. J. (2018b).
Intutionistic fuzzy dimensional analysis for multi-criteria decision making. Iranian Journal of
Fuzzy Systems, 15(6), 17–40. http://doi.org/10.22111/IJFS.2018.4363
Perez-Dominguez, L., Rodriguez-Picon, L. A., Alvarado-Iniesta, A., Cruz, D. L., & Xu, Z. (2018a).
MOORA under pythagorean fuzzy set for multiple criteria decision making. Complexity, 2018,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2602376.
Raj, A., Dwivedi, G., Sharma, A., Jabbour, D. S. A. B. L., & Rajak, S. (2020). Barriers to the adoption
of industry 4.0 technologies in the manufacturing sector: an inter-country comparative per­
spective. International Journal of Production Economics, 224(June), 107546. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijpe.2019.107546
Rajput, S., & Singh, S. P. (2019). Industry 4.0- challenges to implement circular economy.
Benchmarking. An International Journal, 57(June), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-
2018-0430
Raut, R., Priyadarshinee, P., Jha, M., Gardas, B. B., & Kamble, S. (2018). Modeling the implemen­
tation barriers of cloud computing adoption: An interpretive structural modeling.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(8), 2760–2782. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-
2016-0189
Reaidy, P. J., Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2015). Bottom-up approach based on Internet of
Things for order fulfillment in a collaborative warehousing environment. International Journal
of Production Economics, 159(January), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.02.017
Ryan, P. J., & Watson, R. B. (2017). Research challenges for the internet of things: What role can
OR play? Systems, 5(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems5010024
Rymaszewska, A., Helo, P., & Gunasekaran, A. (2017). IoT powered servitization of manufacturing
– An exploratory case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 192(October), 92–
105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.02.016.
Sarvari, P. A., Ustundag, A., Cevikcan, E., Kaya, I., & Cebi, S. (2018). Technology roadmap for
industry 4.0: industry 4.0: managing the digital transformation (pp. 95–103). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57870-5_5
Schallock, B., Rybski, C., Jochem, R., & Kohl, H. (2018). Learning factory for industry 4.0 to
provide future skills beyond technical training the 8th Conference on Learing Factories 2018
(CLF 2018) - Advanced Engineering Education & Tranining for Manufacturing Innovation 12-
13 April 2018 Patras, Greece. 23 (Elsevier Procedia), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.
2018.03.156
Seiti, H., Hafezalkotob, A., Najafi, S. E., & Khalaj, M. (2019). Developing a novel risk-based
MCDM approach based on D numbers and fuzzy information axiom and its applications in
preventive maintenance planning. Applied Soft Computing, 82(September), 105559. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105559
254 D. SUMRIT

Sivathanu, B. B., & Pillai, B. Smart HR 4.0 – How industry 4.0 is disrupting HR. (2018). Human
Resource Management International Digest, 26(4), 7–11. available at. https://doi.org/10.1108/
HRMID-04-2018-0059
Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2019). Key ingredients for evaluating industry 4.0 readiness for organiza­
tions: a literature review. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(7), 2213–2232. https://
doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2018-0284
Tang, Y., & Yang, Y. (2021). Sustainable e-bike sharing recycling supplier selection: an interval-
valued pythagorean fuzzy MAGDM method based on preference information technology.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 287(March), 125530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.
125530
Trappey, A. J.C., Trappey, C. V., Govindarajan, U. H., Chuang, A. C., & Sun, J. J. (2017). A review
of essential standards and patent landscapes for the internet of things: A key enabler for
industry4.0. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 33(August), 208–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.aei.2016.11.007.
Vey, K., Fandel-Meyer, T., Zipp, J. S., & Schneider, C. (2017). Learning & development in times of
digital transformation: Facilitating a culture of change and innovation. International Journal of
Advanced Corporate Learning, 10(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v10i1.6334
Wang, B., Zhao, J. Y., Wan, Z. G., Ma, J. H., Li, H., & Ma, J. (2016). Lean intelligent production
system and value stream practice. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Economics
and Management, ICEM 2016, 2-3 July, 2016 (Publons) Suzhou, Jiangsu, China, 442–448.
https://doi.org/10.12783/DTEM/ICEM2016/4106.
Yager R.R. (2014). Phyhagorean membership grades in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22(4), 958–965.
Yang, Z., Sun, J., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). Understanding SaaS adoption from the perspective
of organizational users: A tripod readiness model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45(April),
254–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.022
Yu, C., Shao, Y., Wang, K., & Zhang, L. (2019). A group decision making sustainable supplier
selection approach using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued phythagorean fuzzy environ­
ment. Expert Systems With Applications, 121(C), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.
010 .
Yucesan, M., & Gul, M. (2020). Hospital service quality evaluation: An integrated model based on
pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Soft Computing, 24(5), 3237–3255. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00500-019-04084-2
Yucesan, M., & Kahraman, G. (2019). Risk evaluation and prevention in hydropower plant
operations: A model based on pythagorean fuzzy AHP. Energy Policy, 126(March), 343–351.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.039
Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate
reasoning–I. Information Sciences, 8(3), 199–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)
90036-5
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 255

Appendix I: The abbreviation

Abbreviation Definition/ Explanation

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
AI Artificial Intelligence
AIFDA Aggregated Intuitionistic Fuzzy Dimensional Analysis
AIFIS Aggregated Intuitionistic Fuzzy Index of Similarity
CPS Cyber-Physical Systems
DM Decision Maker
FMCDM Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IFN Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers
IFS Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets
IIoT Industrial Internet of Things
IoT Internet of Things
IT Information Technology
IT2FS Interval Two-Type Fuzzy Sets
IVPFS Interval-valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Set
IVPF-AHP Interval-valued Pythagorean Fuzzy AHP
IVPFN Interval-valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Number
IVPFWG Interval-valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Weighted Geometric
IVPFLWA interval-valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Weighted Geometric
MCDM Multi Criteria Decision Making
M2M Machine-to-Machine
PFS Pythagorean Fuzzy Set
PFAHP Pythagorean Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process
TFS Triangular Fuzzy Set

Appendix II: The remaining of the significant weight of expert

The significant weights of expert 2 (λ2 ), expert 3 (λ3 ), expert 4 (λ4 ), expert 5 (λ5 ) are calculated by
Equation (8), as follows:
qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
1
2 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2
λ2 ¼ 0:186 ¼ qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
1
2 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2 þ 12 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2
q ffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi q ffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
þ 12 ð1 0:600Þ2 þ ð1 0:273Þ2 þ 12 ð1 0:796Þ2 þ ð1 0:591Þ2
qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
þ 12 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2

qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
1
2 ð1 0:600Þ2 þ ð1 0:273Þ2
λ3 ¼ 0:283 ¼ qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
1
2 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2 þ 12 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2
q ffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi q ffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
þ 12 ð1 0:600Þ2 þ ð1 0:273Þ2 þ 12 ð1 0:796Þ2 þ ð1 0:591Þ2
qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
þ 12 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2
256 D. SUMRIT

qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
1
2 ð1 0:796Þ2 þ ð1 0:591Þ2
λ4 ¼ 0:156 ¼ qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
1
2 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2 þ 12 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2
q ffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi q ffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
þ 12 ð1 0:600Þ2 þ ð1 0:273Þ2 þ 12 ð1 0:796Þ2 þ ð1 0:591Þ2
qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
þ 12 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2

qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
1
2 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2
λ5 ¼ 0:186 ¼ qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
1
2 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2 þ 12 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2
q ffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi q ffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
þ 12 ð1 0:600Þ2 þ ð1 0:273Þ2 þ 12 ð1 0:796Þ2 þ ð1 0:591Þ2
qffiffiffi�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ffiffi
þ 12 ð1 0:698Þ2 þ ð1 0:545Þ2
 © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited,
trading as Taylor and Francis Group. This work is licensed
under the Creative Commons Attribution License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”).
Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may
use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.