Institutionalising Industry 4.

0: a Delphi study of institutional change readiness

for the fourth industrial revolution in an emerging economy

Hameeda A. AlMalki1 and Christopher M. Durugbo1,2*

1
Department of Innovation and Technology Management, Arabian Gulf University, Manama,
Bahrain
2
Abu Dhabi School of Management, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

*Corresponding author details

Email: [email protected]
Telephone: + 971 2 691 7 777

Acknowledgements:

We acknowledge the support of the Bahrain Quality Authority (BQA), Bahrain Centre for
Strategic, International and Energy Studies (DERASAT), Ministry of Education and Ministry
of Labour in Bahrain for their support and help during this research.
Institutionalising Industry 4.0: a Delphi study of institutional change readiness
for the fourth industrial revolution in an emerging economy

Abstract:

Emergence of the fourth industrial revolution prompts digital transitions and transformations of
economic sectors, with pressures for institutions to prepare and respond in a way that harnesses the
progressive potentials of Industry 4.0 for socioeconomic growth. The purpose of this research is to
evaluate core institutional change readiness factors for Industry 4.0, with focus on institutional
innovation that sustains technology trajectories and supports technology use in an emerging economy.
Using the Delphi methodology with a panel of 71 triple helix (i.e., university, industry, and
government) experts, the research identifies, selects, and prioritises collaboration and capability
readiness factors. Initial literature review identifies 50 readiness factors and subsequent non-
parametric tests find that ‘clarity of goals and relevance’ and ‘innovating competencies’ are the
topmost collaboration and capability factors, respectively. Discussions on these findings imply
integrated analyses based on the triple helix as well as institutional and ‘clarity-creativity’ dyadic
framings for technology management studies of Industry 4.0. The managerial implications of the
research centre on factors-based recommendations concerning support systems for Industry 4.0
transdisciplinary collaboration and action plans for building digital capability, in furtherance of the
fourth industrial revolution. Concluding the research is a highlight of the research limitations and
potential future research areas.

Keywords: Industry 4.0; Fourth Industrial Revolution; Institutional innovation; Change Readiness;
Triple Helix; Delphi; Digitalisation; Digital Transformation; Strategic Foresight
1 INTRODUCTION

Current economic assessments based on the prospects of Industry 4.0 suggest that between 75 and 375
million people (i.e., 3 to 14% of the global workforce) may need to switch occupations by 2030 due to
Industry 4.0 (Manyika et al., 2017). Globally, the services robotics industry is worth about 6.7 billion
USD and there are approximately 3 million industrial robots functioning in factories, according to 2020
figures by the International Federation of Robotics (2021). Various attempts to explain the rapid digital
transitions and transformations of global economic sectors, stemming from Industry 4.0, allude to
inevitable quests for competitiveness, pressures for market growth, and increasing internationalisation
(Piccarozzi et al., 2018; Chirumalla, 2021; AlMalki and Durugbo, 2023a).
Considering the economic impact of Industry 4.0 gives rise to some important challenges for production
management research. For a start, there are challenges to understand and explain readiness factors for
Industry 4.0 (Castelo-Branco et al., 2019; Nhamo et al. 2020; Zutin et al., 2022). There are also
academic research challenges to deepen knowledge and offer empirical insights on the core institutional
innovation factors that determine Industry 4.0 policy initiatives for facilitating digital transformations
of various industries (Avelino et al., 2017; AlMalki and Durugbo, 2023b). Institutions are rules of
societies or of organisations that govern behaviour among individuals (Scott 2006), and core
institutional factors, are used here to mean the range of significant and decisive variables of institutions
that influence organisational and regional strategies. Although recent studies confront challenges of
change readiness for Industry 4.0 (Schroeder et al., 2019; Wankhede & Vinodh, 2022) and institutional
innovation for digital transformations (Webster and Gardner 2019; Mohsen et al. 2021) independently,
there remains a pertinent academic research problem and paucity of studies at the intersection of both
challenges, i.e., concerning institutional change readiness for Industry 4.0. Tackling this problem is
crucial to enhancing Industry 4.0 readiness via proactive policy initiatives that facilitate institutional
innovation for future-proofing skills (Nielsen et al., 2021) and for inclusive economic growth (Lele &
Goswami, 2017; Poloz, 2021). Thus, the research gap tackled in this study is limited knowledge on the
significant and decisive variables that determine institutional change readiness for Industry 4.0.
The aim of this article is to evaluate core institutional change readiness factors for Industry 4.0, with
focus on institutional innovation for supporting rapid digital transitions and transformations due to the
fourth industrial revolution, using the context of an emerging economy. Methodologically, this research
adopts the Delphi technique that is suited to “for structuring a group communication process so that the
process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem”
(Linstone and Turoff, 2002; p.3). Conceptually, this research adopts the viewpoint of the triple helix
(Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2013; Ivanova & Leydesdorff, 2014), a widely adopted evolutionary model of
innovation that suggests social-economic growth stem from exchanges between the core institutions of
universities, industries, and governments.
This article contributes to existing production management research and change readiness theory in two
distinctive ways. First, the article provides new analytical insights on change readiness for Industry 4.0
based on an institutional context. Second, and with close links to the first contribution, the study offers
empirical insights on core institutional change readiness factors for Industry 4.0 from a triple helix
perspective. Change readiness theory (Armenakis et al., 1993; Weiner; 2020) suggests that readiness is
a multi-level, multi-faceted construct that requires shared resolve and belief to implement change as
well as decisional latitude, participation, and power for those implementing change. Although various
theorisations of change readiness seek to expound on the nature of individual and collective behaviours
that creates change readiness (Walinga, 2008), what remains largely unclear is what institutional factors
lead to change readiness and how these variables proportionally or preferentially aid change readiness.
Considering this gap in knowledge, this study makes a theoretical contribution by detailing the factors
of institutional change readiness and the prioritisation of these factors as part of a collective set of rule-
based conditions that determine change, using an Industry 4.0 context.
Appropriately, the extant literature contains expositions on technological (Samaranayake et al. 2017;
Zutin et al., 2022), organisational (Machado et al., 2019; Stentoft et al., 2021), and regional (Nhamo et
al. 2020; Castelo-Branco et al., 2019) forms of readiness in the context of Industry 4.0. In these studies,
the premise is that assessments, evaluations, and benchmarks of readiness precede the development (or
maturing) of organisations (Gökalp et al., 2017; Pacchini et al., 2019) and the overarching objective of
these readiness studies involves proposing support tools to guide organisations towards the achievement
of higher maturity levels for maximising returns from Industry 4.0 involvement (Machado et al., 2019).
However, the impacts of ‘game changing’ crisis phenomena, such as the global economic downturn in
2008 and the recent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, emphasise the need for an
institutional perspective on change readiness due to the socioeconomic issues raised by current and
emerging technologies of Industry 4.0 (Penprase, 2018; AlMalki and Durugbo, 2022). Considering
current needs of industry, this research posits that an assessment of institutional change readiness from
a triple helix perspective is important for deepening insights on maturity levels for institutions and that
these insights are in turn essential to supporting Industry 4.0 transitions and transformations of different
organisations and regions. Specifically, this research confronts the following question:
From the perspective of experts within the triple helix, what are the core institutional change readiness
factors of Industry 4.0 for the innovations that support digital transitions and transformations of
organisations and regions?
Thus, this research seeks to understand the institutional aspects of Industry 4.0 relevant to companies
and countries.
The rest of this article proceeds as follows. §2 provides a literature background on the challenge,
context, conceptualisation, and critique for this research, §3 outlines the adopted Delphi methodology,
§4 presents the findings of the Delphi-based evaluation, and §5 discusses the implications, limitations,
and potential future directions for research on Industry 4.0 readiness.

2 BACKGROUND

Historically, industrial revolutions cause major technological breakthroughs, productivity gains, and
socio-economic improvements in the quality of life. Mechanisation, mass production, steam power,
automation, electrical energy, and electronics are some examples of innovations from the three major
industrial revolutions that delivered momentous institutional benefits with impact on global cultures,
economies, and education in society. However, evidence (e.g., Morrar et al. (2017), Rajnai and Kocsis
(2018), and Li et al. (2020)) suggests that the fourth industrial revolution, also described as Industry 4.0
(Schwab, 2017), is progressing at a more rapid pace than the preceding revolutions. Here, Industry 4.0
means “the adoption by industrial companies of techniques and processes allowed by digitisation, cloud
computing, the internet of things and big data to gain competitive advantages in domestic and global
markets” (Castelo-Branco et al., 2019; p.22). Similarly, Jazdi (2014) describes Industry 4.0 as the use
of cyber-physical systems (CPSs), the IoT and the Internet of Services (IoS) for radical shifts in the way
we live, operate, and relate to each other. Underpinning Industry 4.0 are cutting-edge information and
communication technologies (ICTs), such as artificial intelligence, 3D printing, cloud-based software
platforms, big data and analytics, augmented reality, and advanced robotics.

2.1 Industry 4.0 readiness: the Challenge

According to Colombo et al. (2015) the fourth industrial revolution represents a significant turning point
in history and the current state of research suggests Industry 4.0 is no longer a ‘future trend’, with many
multi-nationals now inculcating Industry 4.0 at the core of strategic agenda (Gilchrist, 2016). Initially
proposed during 2011 by the German Industrial and Academic communities with the support of the
German Government, Industry 4.0 implies a revolutionary change characterised by the ubiquitous and
mobile Internet with cheaper, smaller, and high-performance sensors incorporating artificial
intelligence (Schwab, 2017). There are also other interpretations of Industry 4.0 as a recent wave of
technological progress that contributes to the decentralisation of centrally controlled production
activities for creating more intelligent, networked, and agile value chains (Hermann et al., 2016;
Schumacher et al., 2016; Samaranayake et al.., 2017). Importantly, Industry 4.0 captures the latest trend
in industry for digital and automation technology, and encompasses enabling technologies such as
CPSs, the IoT, and cloud computing (Hermann et al., 2016; Lasi et al., 2014; Davies et al., 2017; Kattan,
2017). These Industry 4.0 enabling technologies provide opportunities for sustainable growth for
countries and firms because such technologies offer higher top- and bottom-line value through faster
design, innovative products, reduced risks, waste disposal, etc. (World Economic Forum, 2019).
Irrespective of the framing, the concept of Industry 4.0 mixes technologies in a manner that blurs the
boundaries between the physical, digital, and biological spheres (Schwab, 2017) and tightly integrate
the physical and digital worlds through combining big data analytics with the IoT (Rojko, 2017).
Fittingly, the Industry 4.0 concept has broad application for supply chains and a wide range of economic
sectors such as power generation and distribution, healthcare, manufacturing, public sector,
transportation, and mining (Xu et al., 2018).
Motivated by socioeconomic growth prospects, an important focus for Industry 4.0 researchers is the
organisational-, regional-, and technological-level readiness that informs strategies for sustaining
trajectories of self-propagating technologies applicable in a range of economic sectors. Most current
studies analyse the organisational-level readiness (or maturity) for Industry 4.0 of manufacturing
enterprises, with several sources (see, for instance, Schumacher et al. (2016), Ustundag & Cevikcan
(2017), Sony & Naik (2019; 2020), and Antony et al. (2021)) proposing and applying models with
typically 4 to 10 dimensions for several maturity items. Generally, the main premise of these studies is
that determining the maturity level aids in setting targets for maturation. Appropriately, studies propose
self-test tools (Machado et al., 2019), metamodels (Basl & Doucek, 2019), and performance monitoring
tools (Honti et al., 2020), that offer guidance for enhancing, acquiring, or developing capabilities.
Studies also offer maturity models that detail current states of specific abilities, discrete levels of
development, with logical paths for reaching ‘perfect conditions’ from initial to anticipated stages
(Ustundag & Cevikcan, 2017; Bibby & Dehe, 2018). These models aid in standardising practice for
Industry 4.0 benchmarking and process improvement (Gökalp et al., 2017; Wankhede & Vinodh, 2022).
Research on organisational readiness for Industry 4.0 also identifies and assesses enablers and barriers
towards digitalisation (Machado et al., 2019; Stentoft et al., 2021), and the need to build human capacity
of Industry 4.0 and human resources readiness (Vrchota et al., 2020) is another facet of the readiness
milieu with education and skilling level challenges for organisations and regions.
The next area of focus on technological-level readiness seeks to deepen understanding around main
concepts, potentials, and impact of Industry 4.0. For instance, Samaranayake et al. (2017) delineate
varying process-, economic-, and environmental-related objectives, noting that the core technological
objectives for Industry 4.0 centre on harnessing knowledge and internet connectivity. There are also
comparative assessments of regional-level readiness for Industry 4.0 that seek to advance sustainable
industrialisation and promotes innovation. For instance, using data from the World Development
Indicators database and a sample of 212 regions, Nhamo et al. (2020) evaluate regional readiness for
implementing Industry 4.0 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Arguing for more maturity
of regions, the authors emphasise the need for platform-based innovation to boost the upscaling of
technologies. Related research by Castelo-Branco et al. (2019), compares 9 infrastructure and big data
capability variables of 22 member countries of the European Union (EU) noting 5 homogeneous groups
(i.e., leaders, average, industry 4.0 infrastructure, big data maturity, and laggards). Similarly, Honti et
al. (2020) explore regional potential of Industry 4.0 for Europe based on development aspects for labour
market, technological readiness, innovation, investment, and higher education.

2.2 Industry 4.0 and institutional innovation: the Context

Although firms increasingly show interests in investments for Industry 4.0 enabling technologies
(Schumacher et al., 2016; Meyer, 2019), institutionally, there is a need for governmental,
organisational, environmental, and social innovation and reforms that tend to accompany technological
changes (Clark, 2002; AlMalki and Durugbo, 2023a; 2023b). Furthermore, recent research notes the
important role of ‘continuous institutional innovation’ to support rapid advances and waves in
technological breakthroughs from Industry 4.0 (Li et al. 2020; Xie and Yang 2021). According to
Raffaelli and Glynn (2015; p.409) institutional innovation is a “novel, useful, and legitimate change
that disrupts, to varying degrees, the cognitive, normative, or regulative mainstays of an organisational
field”. Similarly, Li et al. (2020b; p.115801), define institutional innovation as “the creation of a new
and more effective system to encourage people’s behaviour, and the realisation of social sustainable
development and innovation under the existing production and living environment”.
Fundamentally, institutions are “the rules of a society or of organisations that facilitate coordination
among people by helping them form expectations which each person can reasonably hold in dealing
with others” (Ruttan and Hayami 1984; p.204). These rules require innovation, reform, and change due
to on-going threats to their legitimacy and pressures to respond to deep and pervasive socio-economic
challenges such as income inequality (Biurrun 2022). Studies of institutional innovation focus on
various challenges to balance discovering different and developing current capabilities – termed
‘institutional ambidexterity’ (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Castellano et al., 2019) – for accelerating
economic activities. For some researchers, the dilemma lies in defining institutional logic in relation to
capabilities and constraints (Waldorff 2013; Kooijman et al. 2017), and in formulating institutional
strategies that determine ownership and governance (Hage and Hollingsworth 2000; Hoskisson et al.
2002; de la Mothe 2004). There is also focus on understanding institutional synergies with goals of
suggesting mechanisms to incentivise and support entrepreneurship (Wang and Huang 2020; Veiga et
al. 2020; Tang et al. 2020a). Other researchers seek to expound on quandaries for managing institutional
engagement with regards to network externalities and relationships (Moore 2011; d’Agostino and
Scarlato 2019). Here, focus is on examining institutional conditions in efforts to identify economic
policies and intermediaries (Chen et al., 2015; Polzin et al. 2016; Biurrun 2022), and on assessing
institutional readiness with imperatives for technology transfer and support (Webster and Gardner 2019;
Mohsen et al. 2021).
In efforts to shed light on the complexities of institutional readiness in relation to digital transitions and
transformation, studies of institutional innovation typically involve theory-grounded analysis. For
instance, guided by normalisation process theory Webster and Gardner (2019) propose a model of
institutional readiness that identifies the saliency of technology readiness. Likewise, Dickson and
Weaver (2011) analyse institutional readiness in the context of strategic choice theory but with a focus
on alliance formation and with recommendations to consider the joint readiness of the potential partners
and institutional environment, when seeking alliance partners. For this study, the evaluation of
institutional readiness draws on change readiness theory (Armenakis et al., 1993; Weiner; 2020) and
the triple helix (Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2013) which posits on the creation and distribution of socially
ordered information as the driving force behind economic growth (Ivanova & Leydesdorff 2014).
Overall, policy initiatives by regions in response to the fourth industrial revolution, reflect an awareness
of the readiness needs of Industry 4.0. Primarily, there are mandates for orientations that promote value
and performance of regional supply chains (Durugbo et al., 2021a) as well as transformative industrial
policies that curb labour market polarisation, champions ‘living-labs’ and repopulates manufacturing
ecosystems (Bailey & De Propris, 2019). Territorial effects and problems of digitising production
additionally warrant the involvement of governments to introduce initiatives (e.g., investment and aid
for resource development and public-private partnerships for local production) attuned to the sectoral
needs of different industries (Bilbao-Ubillos et al., 2021). Education policies for the fourth industrial
revolution are also crucial because Industry 4.0 amalgamates technologies across different fields and
distorts pre-existing boundaries between reality and cyberspace, triggering disruptions to governance
of national education systems (Jules, 2016). These policies must respond to new network governance
modes afforded by Industry 4.0 technologies such as IoT and AI in the communication and decision-
making of teachers and education administrators. There are also active debates among educators on
leading and responding to Industry 4.0 with higher education particularly under scrutiny for its role in
developing technological innovations and responding to future job demands (Lee et al., 2019). Research
also notes the institutional importance of public (Lele & Goswami, 2017), monetary (Poloz, 2021),
work (Nielsen et al., 2021), and social innovation (Buhr, 2015) policy initiatives, as part of political
actions to support inclusive economic growth, tackle social challenges, provide public safety nets, and
facilitate inclusive labour markets in the Industry 4.0 era.

2.3 The Triple Helix model of innovation by institutions: the Conceptualisation

Initially proposed in the 1990s, the triple helix, according to Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1998, p.1), is
a “spiral model of innovation, which is able to capture multiple reciprocal linkages at different stages
of the capitalization of the knowledge”. The argument being that the links between universities,
industries, and governments exist as a three-part communication network, with the triple helix
anticipated to exhibit a complex dynamic. The model reflects the various styles and degrees of
collaboration among these three key institutional actors in the innovation process (Etzkowitz &
Leydesdorff, 1998). Unlike some existing models of change and innovation, such as the diffusion of
innovation (Rogers, 1983) and disruptive innovation (Christensen, 1997), which tend to focus on the
dynamic process for creating, implementing, and adopting new ideas, the triple helix model promotes
the development of institutions and is about adjusting the institutional environment or institutional
innovation, to harness relationships between academia, business, and government for competitive
socioeconomic development (Cai, 2015). Although comparable to the systems of innovation concept
which also posits on networks of institutions whose interactions generate innovations (Edquist, 1997),
the triple helix concept is more focused and prescriptive of the “structure and dynamics underlying the
innovation system functioning at various levels” (Leydesdorff & Zawdie, p.789). This prescriptiveness
of institutional actors is the motivation for adopting the triple helix in this study concerning perceptions
of institutional actors on institutional change readiness factors.
Determinedly, the ultimate role of the triple helix is the generation and diffusion of knowledge and
innovation (Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2013) with increasing focus on sustainability targets and re-imagining
institutions (Luengo-Valderrey et al., 2020). Additionally, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1998) argue that
the triple helix model will increasingly be the key strategy of the national innovation agenda of the 21st
century. In this context, the challenge remains to remove barriers to interaction and cooperation among
institutional actors and agencies (James & Etzkowitz, 2007). The literature also notes that in both
developed and emerging economies, the triple helix model of innovation has earned a lot of attention
as a policy instrument for boosting ‘innovation in innovation’ and promoting economic growth
(Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1998; Cai, 2015).
Owing to incessant and recurrent socio-economic and technological changes in society, the dynamics
of innovation tend to influence the development of regions (Smith & Bagchi-Sen, 2010) and economic
systems (Viale & Pozzali, 2010). The triple helix offers a framing for understanding this dynamic but
there are ongoing debates on the usefulness of the model for developing such insight (Cai & Amaral,
2021). Most of the critiques of the triple helix pertain to potential inadequacies in the contextualization
of the model with attention drawn to its restrictiveness to the triad at a macrolevel (Pugh, 2017) and a
vagueness in characterising the elements of the triadic actors at a microlevel (Viale & Pozzali, 2010).
These critiques relate to the subtleties and sensitivities of innovation dynamics where the posited entities
may exhibit varying roles dependent on regional and situational context. For instance, universities may
be research- or teaching-focused, and innovation in certain regions may be the function of interactions
involving labour markets, local communities or civil society, the third sector, informal actors, and
financial institutions. Critics of the triple helix additionally argue that the involvement of universities
in this spiral might cause these academic institutions to lose their distinctive characteristics and lead to
a commercialisation and corruption of universities, which places their special mission of scholarship at
risk (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2006). Yet, the model offers a useful conceptualisation and added layer of
abstraction for researchers to capture the varying proclivities of triple helix actors, leading to enhanced
knowledge on strategies, orientations, and priorities for institutional innovation (Janahi et al., 2022;
AlMalki and Durugbo, 2023a). Additionally, the triple helix supports modifications and there are calls
for researchers to modify the model according to local contexts whilst preserving the ‘creative dynamic’
of the triadic structure (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2006) and the reciprocity among these institutions which is
instrumental to innovation that generates societal value. Fittingly, flexibility of the triple helix accounts
for extensions and contextualisation of the model that propose regional triple helices which recognise
regional factors and catalysts for innovation (Smith & Bagchi-Sen, 2010) and evolutionary triple helices
which vary according to roles of institutional actors (Viale & Pozzali, 2010).
In the literature on institutional innovation, the triple helix model has been used in studies of economic
development (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2006), open innovation (Leydesdorff & Ivanova, 2016), niche
innovation (Brem & Radziwon, 2017), redundancy generation (Leydesdorff et al., 2017), intellectual
property (Borges et al., 2020), and innovation ecosystems (Zanello et al., 2016; Pique et al., 2018).
Triple helix studies also explore business innovation (Hernández-Trasobares & Murillo-Luna, 2020),
entrepreneurship (Guerrero & Urbano, 2017; Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2018; Li et al., 2020), industrial
biotechnology (Barrie et al., 2019), renewable energy development (Lerman et al, 2021), creative
economic marketing (Wijiharjono, 2021), knowledge transfer (Prasetio et al., 2021; Lopes et al, 2021),
and big data and social networks (Park, 2020). Some scholars contribute to developing theoretical
foundations of the triple helix, drawing from various theoretical insights, such as institutional theory
(Cai, 2014; 2015), and game theory (Megnigbeto, 2018).
Reviewing studies of institutional innovation indicates use of varying approaches such as case studies
(Abzug & Mezias, 1993; Yang, 2018), surveys (Barasa et al., 2017; Arranz, et al., 2019), and
mathematical models and formalisation (Wu et al., 2016). There are also instances of mixed methods
(Martin et al, 2018; De Rozario, 2016), theoretical models (Pinho, 2017), literature review (Bakir &
Gunduz, 2017) and exploratory studies (Corsi, & Prencipe, 2019; Tumbas, et al., 2018). Other methods
are meta-analysis (Rosenbusch et al., 2019; Kraft & Bausch, 2018; Mueller et al., 2013), field
experiments (Boudreau & Lakhani, 2016), and action research (Andersen & Bilfeldt, 2017). However,
to tackle its main objective and question, this research relies on an alternative approach, the Delphi
process (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963).

2.4 Evaluation of current studies and change readiness theory: the Critique

Thus far, studies on change readiness theory primarily focus on the individual and organisational level
of change readiness, with researchers like Armenakis and Harris (2009) positing on decision conditions
that aid in individual and collective decisiveness to create, support, or resist change. These factors are
discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence. An alternative organisational-
level change readiness perspective posits on tasks, resources, and situations as factors for implementing
change (Weiner, 2020). Other recent studies elaborate on domain-specific change agents as predictors
of process efficacy, with expositions on the unique roles of salespersons (Mullins & Agnihotri, 2022)
and care workers (Turja et al., 2020). Irrespective of the research focus, there is a common assumption
that organisational change requires individuals – leaders and members alike – to be readied or oriented
for imminent change (Walinga, 2008).
Change readiness theory fundamentally argues that entities need to create readiness by reducing
resistance and barriers to change. Hence, readiness is intuitively and intrinsically linked to resistance
because “if people are not ready for change, they will resist” (Walinga, 2008; p.315). Considering
resistance is a typical human response to change, the theoretical basis for change readiness, in most
current studies, tends to centre on change agents becoming crucial in their social roles as influencers
within change dynamics for proactively inducing support and participation of change targets
(Armenakis et al., 1993). Owing to the attitudinal mindsets of individuals towards change and the need
for combinations and commitments within organisations, the need to shed light on cognitive factors,
social forces, and the social nature of organisational change is a continuing concern within studies of
change readiness theory (e.g., Turja et al. (2020) and Mullins & Agnihotri (2022)). However, a focus
on the cognitive and social factors of change is limited in coverage of the challenges facing modern
institutions to change in response to mega-trends and events (e.g., financial crisis and COVID-19).
These events are radical perturbations that threaten the legitimacy of institutions, triggering induced,
collective, and continuous institutional changes supported by ‘pumps’ of investment that underpin
direct actions by governments, businesses, universities, and other institutions (AlMalki and Durugbo,
2023b).
Specifically, what is missing, remains unclear, and is not fully understood in change readiness literature,
is a theoretical framing that reflects an institutional change perspective. Drawing from an inclusive view
of change readiness theory which recognises the role of contextual factors (Armenakis et al., 1993), this
study posits and argues that factors of institutional change readiness are important considerations that
reflect contexts for change readiness. Due to the ramifications of unpreparedness for mega-trends and
events, such as exposing ‘black holes’ in institutions (Durugbo and Al-Balushi, 2022), readiness for
institutional change is an important mindset that primes governments, businesses, universities, and other
institutions for changes to established practices, conventions, and customs. This focus contrasts with
but complements existing theorisations of change readiness that tend to consider social roles and
dynamics.
Overall, the reviewed literature contains concepts calling attention to change readiness and institutional
innovation for Industry 4.0. Studies on readiness for Industry 4.0 seem to offer advanced models, tools,
and indices of organisational-, regional-, and technological-level readiness (Schumacher et al., 2016;
Castelo-Branco et al., 2019; Machado et al., 2019; Vrchota et al., 2020; Nhamo et al., 2020; Honti et
al., 2020; Antony et al. 2021; Stentoft et al., 2021) – but these offerings could be critiqued for limited
focus on institutional-level readiness. Limited coverage of institutional change readiness for Industry
4.0 is a research gap with implications on clarity in the logic and legitimacy of institutions, bearing in
mind transitions and transformations due to the fourth industrial revolution. Similarly, studies focused
on institutional innovation for Industry 4.0 tend to theorise on the complexities of digital transitions and
transformation. Although these studies elaborate on territorial effects and policy needs (Webster and
Gardner, 2019; Bailey & De Propris, 2019; Bilbao-Ubillos et al., 2021), there is another important
research gap related to the significant and decisive management variables that determine institutional
change readiness for innovations accompanying and facilitating the digital transitions and
transformation of the fourth industrial revolution.
Driven by potentials for significant gains in productivity and sustainability, Industry 4.0 remains a top
production and technology management priority. For companies, there are prospects for more
intelligent, networked, and agile value chains, while for countries, there are socioeconomic gains and
value from enhanced design and reduced risks of regional operations. However, the adoption of Industry
4.0 by companies and countries is fundamentally an institutional problem with a pertinent challenge for
institutional change readiness that accompanies digital transitions and transformation of the fourth
industrial revolution (Samaranayake et al.; 2017; World Economic Forum, 2019; AlMalki and Durugbo,
2022). Thus, an awareness of core factors that determine institutional change readiness for Industry 4.0
is crucial to sustaining value and supporting legitimacy of institutions during the fourth industrial
revolution. Using change readiness and the triple helix as conceptual framings and the Delphi technique
as the methodological approach, this research evaluates the institutional collaboration and capability
readiness factors for the fourth industrial revolution.

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Methodologically, this study employs the Delphi technique (Linstone and Turoff, 2002) because the
technique is appropriate to tackling the research question of this study, which concerns the opinions of
triple helix experts. Delphi focuses on the perspectives and opinions of subject experts to identify core
or critical factors for making forecasts, foresights, and strategic planning (Richardson et al., 2016;
Mukherjee et al., 2018). Additionally, previous studies (e.g., Subrahmanya (2019), Janahi et al. (2022),
and AlMalki and Durugbo (2023a)) argue that the consensus exercise afforded by the Delphi technique
is relevant and convenient for triple helix studies because it allows subject matter experts from the
institutional entities of the triple helix to gather, make, and revise choices on a topic. The Delphi
technique is a well-established and mainstream methodology applied in production management
research studies of Industry 4.0 with respect to manufacturing (Culot et al., 2020; Ivascu, 2020), SMEs
(Moeuf et al., 2020), business networks (Schroeder et al., 2019), and the circular economy (Abdul-
Hamid et al., 2021; Shayganmehr et al., 2021). Developed by research scientists at the RAND
Corporation in the 1940s, Delphi is a group facilitation technique that selects experts and solicits the
opinions of these experts on issues through multiple rounds to reach group consensus (Linstone and
Turoff, 2002; Durugbo et al., 2021b). Delphi is widely used in academic research and is especially
suited to this study for four main reasons (Richardson et al., 2016): (i) suitability for exploratory
research and theory building on complex issues; (ii) viability for convergence among a diverse panel of
independent experts, e.g., managers and consultants; (iii) popularity of the academic research approach;
and (iv) flexibility provided by limited constraints on the geographical proximity of research
participants.
Underpinning the Delphi methodology of this research is a constructivist perspective that supports the
construction of knowledge by individuals as opposed to passive roles that take in information and
knowledge (Saunders et al., 2012). This viewpoint further argues that as people experience the world
and reflect upon their experiences, they build their own representations and incorporate new information
into their pre-existing knowledge (Glasersfeld, 2005). Although there are variations in steps and tools
in the literature, the Delphi methodology usually consists of three main stages: initialisation,
operationalisation, and presentation (Durugbo et al., 2021b), as summarised by Figure 1.

Figure 1: Flowchart for implemented Delphi Methodology

During these stages, the Delphi methodology distinctively: (i) supports an iterative process allowing
experts to revise choices, (ii) maintains anonymity for true opinions to emerge, and (iii) supports high
conflict situations involving multiple decision makers (Mukherjee et al., 2018). The expectation is that
these features afforded by Delphi will facilitate experts in appraising and adjusting their preferences
and prioritisation of significant and decisive variables that determine institutional change readiness for
Industry 4.0.
3.1 Initialisation stage: Selection of panel experts

The initialisation of the Delphi study involves expert sampling (which is a form of the non-probability
purposive sampling technique) that carefully recruits a panel of experts in a particular field with high-
level knowledge on the investigated issue. Here, an expert is “a person who has background in the
subject area and is recognised by his or her peers or those conducting the study as qualified to answer
questions” (Meyer and Booker, 2001; p.3). In line with previous studies (e.g., Durugbo et al. (2020)
and Reefke and Sundaram (2018)), a minimum of two years’ work experience and a bachelor’s degree
level of education serves as the objective inclusion criteria.
The Kingdom of Bahrain provides the sample for this study and offers a unique economic, socio-
political, legal, and cultural context of an emerging economy. Bahrain’s GDP in 2019 was $38.472
billion with a 2.49% growth rate, and industry makes up about 39.3% of GDP. Area size for the
Kingdom is 779.95 km2, population is 1.544 million, and 98.64% of the populace are internet users.
Several institutional initiatives in Bahrain offer support for Industry 4.0 such as the launch of the
Bahrain FinTech Bay in 2018, the Amazon Web Services (AWS) data centre in 2019, and the $100m
Al Waha Fund of Funds by the Bahrain Development Bank to fuel technology start-ups. Driving the
initiatives are government-supported agencies such as the Bahrain Economic Development Board (a
public agency that seeks to attract investment) and Tamkeen (a semi-autonomous government agency
that supports firms). Accordingly, the focus of this research is on triple helix experts with knowledge
of these initiatives and other institutional Industry 4.0 developments.
Although there is no set standard for determining the sample size of a Delphi panel, there is a general
viewpoint that the reliability of group judgment increases with more participants (Santaguida et al.,
2018). Typically, studies use a sample between 10 and 100 (Akins et al., 2005) and there is a
prescription to have 10 to 18 panel members per area of expertise (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). Factoring
potential initial rejection rates and subsequent dropout rates, the research sets a sample size of 30 for
each area of expertise within the triple helix – giving a total sample of 90 experts. Recruitment of panel
experts began with initial contact via telephone and email with administrators of major Bahraini
universities, businesses, and governmental entities involved in the technology sector. Following the
consultation and contact, 71 out of the 90 managers and strategists agree to take part – the remaining
experts either declined the invitation to the panel or were unavailable. The sample includes a 54-46 split
between male and female experts, 67% had at least 10 years’ work experience, 77.5% were over 35
years, 76% had postgraduate (Masters and Doctorate) degrees, with a composition of 34% from
universities, 30% from government, and 36% from industry.

3.2 Operationalisation stage: Delphi process

The operationalisation of the Delphi study involves using questionnaires with controlled feedback for
eliciting opinions via structured interviews, online polling, workshops, postal surveys, and so on.
Careful assessments select, rate, and rank factors over two or three rounds to prevent the process turning
into an overly burdensome exercise for the experts (Linstone and Turoff, 2002; Durugbo et al., 2020).
Like previous studies (Putnam et al., 1995; Van Zolingen & Klaassen, 2003), this research proceeds
with a pilot study followed by two Delphi rounds, as shown by Figure 1. Using the widely adopted
SurveyMonkey platform for survey polls, each phase begins with a pre-test involving six university and
industry experts to ensure clarity and consistency in the substance, structure, and staging of polls, as
applied in related studies (Klassen & Whybark 1994; Durugbo et al., 2021b).
Initially, the pilot study seeks to identify a preliminary set of institutional collaboration and capability
readiness factors for the Delphi rounds. Institutional collaboration readiness is about preparedness to
work together and pool resources for achieving the institutional objectives of supporting Industry 4.0
through partnerships and synergies, and this support increasingly involves co-creation, co-management,
and co-decisions. Literature highlights institutional collaboration for innovation in contexts such as the
triple-helix (Hernández-Trasobares & Murillo-Luna, 2020), R&D collaborations (Hou et al. 2019),
multi-level institutional linkages (Rodima-Taylor et al. 2012), and collaborative agglomeration for
regions (Li and Xing 2020). Similarly, institutional capability readiness relates to preparedness of
competencies and expertise that advance the fourth industrial revolution. Framed in the literature using
theories such as resource-based view, dynamic capabilities, and absorptive capacity, capabilities are the
main determinant of institutional innovation (Sawang et al. 2017), with evidence suggesting that the
diversity of capabilities delivers innovative strength for institutions (AlMalki and Durugbo, 2023b).
The underlying premise for this grouping is that the technological innovations demand capability
readiness, while the non-technological innovations demand collaboration readiness.
Based on a review of literature, this phase generates a list of potential factors, and an online survey tests
the reliability of the factors with inputs from 30 volunteers from the original sample of 71 experts
involved in the Delphi panel. This survey solicits agreement on the applicability of each factor on a 7-
point Likert scale (7 being ‘strongly agree’ and 1 being ‘strongly disagree’) and tests for reliability
using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951), a widely-used metric for measurement instruments such as
scales, multiple item tests, and questionnaires. Next, the first Delphi round attempts to identify critical
factors as perceived by the panel. For this round, all 71-panel experts took part in the online polling to
select their preferred 12 collaboration and 12 capability readiness factors. The SurveyMonkey
‘checkboxes’ question type and range specifying function (to exactly 12 responses) ensures the
selection of the required number of factors. Finally, the second Delphi round strives to evaluate the
critical factors from the preceding round. During this round, 60 (84.5%) experts from the original
sample of 71 experts ordered the twelve-factor lists of collaboration and capability readiness factors
from first to twelfth, according to the preferences of the experts. The participants in this round include
23 university, 27 industrial and 21 government experts. The remaining experts were unwilling to
participate or ignored requests for participation. This was somewhat expected because typical dropout
rates of around 20% tend to occur over Delphi rounds (Beiderbeck et al., 2021). Additionally, the round
uses the SurveyMonkey ‘required’ feature to ensure comparative ranking of each factor by the panel
experts. Both Delphi rounds applied randomised order of factors to limit order impact and email
reminders to boost response rates. Average completion time for both rounds was 10–15 minutes.

3.3 Presentation stage: Analysis of panel opinion data

Motivated by Schmidt (1997), the presentation of the Delphi findings involves non-parametric
statistical analysis of the combined responses (usually rated or ranked ordinal data) by the panel. For
the dichotomous outcome variables from the first Delphi round, the study applies the Cochran’s Q test
(Cochran, 1950) to determine differences within panel responses, and the McNemar’s chi-square test
(McNemar, 1947) with Bonferroni correction to establish differences between the tallied dichotomous
responses, with comparisons based on two-way contingency tables. Similarly, for the ordinal outcome
variables from the second Delphi round, the study adopts the Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W)
(Kendall, 1948) to determine levels of concordance and discordance, and the Friedman’s test (Friedman,
1937) to summarise differences in the rating of factors.

4 FINDINGS

4.1 Identification of readiness factors

The initial literature review of the pilot study identifies 50 readiness factors consisting of 23
collaboration (Co1 to Co23) and 27 capability (Ca1 to Ca27) readiness factors, as summarised by Table
1. The means of responses range from 4.24 to 6.17 out of 7 for collaboration factors and from 5.17 to
6.20 out of 7 for capability factors, with Cronbach's Alphas of 0.942 and 0.958, respectively. Due to the
significant high level of agreement and reliability, all identified factors from the review progressed to
the Delphi rounds.

Table 1: Identified institutional change readiness factors from the literature review of the pilot study
Readiness Overview Readiness factors Sample
orientation sources
Institutional Essential Communication of action plan (Co1) Psycharis
collaboration participant, Guidelines for compliance (Co2) (2005),
partnership, and Clarity of goals and relevance (Co3) Domlyn &
participation Technological skills (Co4) Wandersman
requirements Expert knowledge (Co5) (2019)
 for institutional Personal abilities (Co6)
innovation Individual motivation (Co7)
Personal natures (Co8)
Financial resources (Co9)
Technological resources (Co10)
Human resources (Co11)
Industry Partnerships (Co12)
Education partnerships (Co13)
Society partnerships (Co14)
Government partnerships (Co15)
Private entity partnerships (Co16)
Stability of IT enterprise systems (Co17)
Stability of IT infrastructure (Co18)
Availability of digital technology (Co19)
Idea sharing mind-sets (Co20)
Decentralised decision making (Co21)
Low-risk aversion mind-sets (Co22)
Creation of social media and digital
communities (Co23)
Institutional Key knowledge, Ability to extract business value (Ca1) Ramirez,
capability skills, and Adaptability of institutions (Ca2) (2007),
competencies Big data analysis and interpretation Woodhill
for institutional competencies (Ca3) (2010),
innovation Business strategy competencies (Ca4) Harder et al.
Change management competencies (Ca5) (2010)
Creativity of institutional actors (Ca6)
Critical thinking competencies (Ca7)
Efficiency orientation capabilities (Ca8)
Entrepreneurial thinking competencies (Ca9)
Flexibility of institutions (Ca10)
Forecasting data and planning metrics for
strategy development (Ca11)
Innovating competencies (Ca12)
Integration of heterogeneous technologies
(Ca13)
Knowledge in cloud computing cloud
architectures (Ca14)
Knowledge in digital security (Ca15)
Knowledge in economics (Ca16)
Knowledge in modelling and programming
(Ca17)
Knowledge management (Ca18)
Knowledge of robotics and artificial
intelligence (Ca19)
Life-long learning skills (Ca20)
Managing complexity (Ca21)
 Managing to change business models as
needed (Ca22)
Problem solving competencies (Ca23)
Technological advancement expertise (Ca24)
Technology attraction skills (Ca25)
Technology awareness (Ca26)
Understanding of technology tools for talent
management (Ca27)

4.2 Selection of core readiness factors

For the first Delphi round, the analysis finds frequency values ranging from 4 (4.4%) to 68 (75.5%) for
collaboration readiness factors and 6 (6.7%) to 65 (72.2%) for capability readiness factors, as
summarised by Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. Analysis of matched categories of frequencies using
Cochran’s Q shows differences among the 23 collaboration readiness factors (Cochran’s Q = 665.812)
and high significance with p value < 0.001. There are also significant differences among the 27
capability factors (Cochran’s Q = 629.312) with p value > 0.001. Additionally, post hoc analysis shows
there are significant differences (p < 0.002) between analysed pairs of collaboration factors in 140 out
of the 253 (55.3%) McNemar tests and analysed pairs of capability factors in 180 out of the 253 (71.1%)
McNemar tests. Overall, the findings, as presented by Table 2 and Table 3, show complete coverage
regarding selections from the full range of institutional factors presented to the panel experts. Following
the analysis, the selected top 12 collaboration factors are Co1 to Co12, while the top 12 capability
factors are Ca2, Ca4, Ca5, Ca8, Ca6, Ca7, Ca9, Ca10, Ca11, Ca17, Ca22, and Ca25. These factors
progressed to next Delphi round.

Table 2: Dichotomous panel data for collaboration readiness factors from the first Delphi round
Institutional collaboration readiness Variance of
Frequency Mean Rank
factor frequency
Communication of action plan (Co1) 64 0.9 0.09 3
Guidelines for compliance (Co2) 52 0.73 0.199 10
Clarity of goals and relevance (Co3) 68 0.96 0.041 1
Technological skills (Co4) 65 0.92 0.078 2
Expert knowledge (Co5) 63 0.89 0.101 4
Personal abilities (Co6) 55 0.77 0.177 8
Individual motivation (Co7) 62 0.87 0.112 5
Personal natures (Co8) 45 0.63 0.235 12
Financial resources (Co9) 60 0.85 0.133 6
Technological resources (Co10) 60 0.85 0.133 6
Human resources (Co11) 49 0.69 0.217 11
 Industry Partnerships (Co12) 55 0.77 0.177 8
Education partnerships (Co13) 28 0.39 0.242 13
Society partnerships (Co14) 12 0.17 0.142 19
Government partnerships (Co15) 27 0.38 0.239 14
Private entity partnerships (Co16) 11 0.15 0.133 20
Stability of IT enterprise systems 9 0.13 0.112 21
(Co17)
Stability of IT infrastructure (Co18) 13 0.18 0.152 18
Availability of digital technology 14 0.2 0.161 16
(Co19)
Idea sharing mind-sets (Co20) 14 0.2 0.161 16
Decentralised decision making (Co21) 14 0.2 0.161 16
Low-risk aversion mind-sets (Co22) 4 0.06 0.054 23
Creation of social media and digital 7 0.1 0.09 22
communities (Co23)
N 71
Cochran's Q 665.812
df 22
p Value < 0.001

Table 3: Dichotomous panel data for capability readiness factors from the first Delphi round
Institutional capability readiness Variance of
Frequency Mean Rank
factor frequency
Ability to extract business value (Ca1) 10 0.1408 0.123 25
Adaptability of institutions (Ca2) 47 0.662 0.227 9
Big data analysis and interpretation 19 0.2676 0.199 15
competencies (Ca3)
Business strategy competencies (Ca4) 26 0.3662 0.235 13
Change management competencies 44 0.6197 0.239 11
(Ca5)
Creativity of institutional actors (Ca6) 62 0.8732 0.112 2
Critical thinking competencies (Ca7) 52 0.7324 0.199 7
Efficiency orientation capabilities (Ca8) 47 0.662 0.227 9
Entrepreneurial thinking competencies 59 0.831 0.142 4
(Ca9)
Flexibility of institutions (Ca10) 52 0.7324 0.199 7
 Forecasting data and planning metrics 56 0.7887 0.169 6
for strategy development (Ca11)
Innovating competencies (Ca12) 61 0.8592 0.123 3
Integration of heterogeneous 7 0.0986 0.09 26
technologies (Ca13)
Knowledge in cloud computing cloud 15 0.2113 0.169 17
architectures (Ca14)
Knowledge in digital security (Ca15) 11 0.1549 0.133 23
Knowledge in economics (Ca16) 11 0.1549 0.133 23
Knowledge in modelling and 14 0.1972 0.161 19
programming (Ca17)
Knowledge management (Ca18) 40 0.5634 0.249 12
Knowledge of robotics and artificial 16 0.2254 0.177 16
intelligence (Ca19)
Life-long learning skills (Ca20) 14 0.1972 0.161 19
Managing complexity (Ca21) 13 0.1831 0.152 22
Managing to change business models as 21 0.2958 0.211 14
needed (Ca22)
Problem solving competencies (Ca23) 58 0.8169 0.152 5
Technological advancement expertise 14 0.1972 0.161 19
(Ca24)
Technology attraction skills (Ca25) 6 0.0845 0.078 27
Technology awareness (Ca26) 65 0.9155 0.078 1
Understanding of technology tools for 14 0.1972 0.161 19
talent management (Ca27)
N 71
Cochran’s Q 629.312
df 26
p Value < 0.001

4.3 Evaluation of core readiness factors

Table 4 and Table 5 summarise the overall ranks, mean ranks, variance of mean ranks, W metrics, and
Friedman’s chi-square (Q) values from the second Delphi round. The evaluation reveals that the highest
ranked collaboration readiness factor (i.e., 1st among the collaboration factors) is ‘clarity of goals and
relevance’ (Co3), which placed first position in the opinion of 26 out the 60 experts who took part in
this round, as illustrated by Table 4. A breakdown of the 26 experts shows Co3 is rated highest by 9
university, 9 industry, and 8 government experts. ‘Technological skills’ (Co4) and ‘expert knowledge’
(Co5) make up the remainder of the top 3 institutional collaboration readiness factors at 2 nd and 3rd
places, respectively. Collectively, the top 3 (i.e., Co3, Co4, and Co5) account for 95 out of 180 possible
top 3 rankings (i.e., 52.8%) for the factors. In contrast, the lowest ranked collaboration factor (i.e., 12th
among the collaboration factors) is ‘personal natures’ (Co8) with 21 out of 60 bottom-placed rankings
made up of 8 educational, 6 industrial, and 7 governmental expert rankings. ‘Personal abilities’ (Co6)
and ‘guidelines for compliance’ (Co2) are the 10th and 11th placed collaboration factors for this round,
making up the rest of the bottom 3 that account for 100 out of 180 possible bottom 3 rankings (i.e.,
55.5%) for collaboration readiness factors. Kendall’s tests show relative agreement among the panel
(W = 0.304) and Friedman test (Friedman’s Q = 200.336, p value < 0.001) indicate variations in the
rating of collaboration readiness factors.

Table 4: Summary of ranked panel data for collaboration readiness factors from second Delphi round
Mean Variance of mean Overall
Institutional collaboration readiness factor
Rank rank rank
Communication of action plan (Co1) 5.60 8.85 4
Guidelines for compliance (Co2) 9.03 6.20 11
Clarity of goals and relevance (Co3) 3.00 7.80 1
Technological skills (Co4) 4.15 7.93 2
Expert knowledge (Co5) 4.78 6.44 3
Personal abilities (Co6) 8.00 14.10 10
Individual motivation (Co7) 5.88 7.80 5
Personal natures (Co8) 9.68 8.76 12
Financial resources (Co9) 5.92 9.33 6
Technological resources (Co10) 6.85 4.91 7
Human resources (Co11) 7.67 11.45 9
Industry Partnerships (Co12) 7.43 7.71 8
N 60
Kendall’s W 0.304
df 11
p value < 0.001

Table 5: Summary of ranked panel data for capability readiness factors from second Delphi round
Mean Variance of mean Overall
Institutional capability readiness factor
Rank rank rank
Adaptability of institutions (Ca2) 8.23 9.61 11
 Change management competencies (Ca5) 7.70 13.26 9
Creativity of institutional actors (Ca6) 4.87 9.24 3
Critical thinking competencies (Ca7) 5.22 7.87 4
Efficiency orientation capabilities (Ca8) 8.95 5.10 12
Entrepreneurial thinking competencies (Ca9) 6.42 12.42 6
Flexibility of institutions (Ca10) 7.53 8.66 8
Forecasting data and planning metrics for 6.55 10.18 7
strategy development (Ca11)
Innovating competencies (Ca12) 4.30 8.11 1
Knowledge management (Ca18) 7.77 12.45 10
Problem solving competencies (Ca23) 5.95 9.34 5
Technology awareness (Ca26) 4.52 12.22 2
N 60
Kendall’s W 0.185
df 11
p value < 0.001

Additionally, the evaluation of the second Delphi round shows ‘innovating competencies’ (Ca12) as
the highest ranked capability readiness factor (i.e., 1st among the capability factors), placing first in the
perceptions of 19 out the 60 experts for the Delphi round. These 19 top-placed rankings are from 4
university, 8 industry, and 7 government experts. The factors ‘technology awareness’ (Ca26) and
‘creativity of institutional actors’ (Ca6) constitute the rest of the top 3 capabilities. Combined, the top
3 (i.e., Ca12, Ca26, and Ca6) account for 83 out of 180 possible top 3 rankings (i.e., 46.1%) for
capability readiness factors. At the other end, the lowest ranked capability factor (i.e., 12 th among the
capability factors) is ‘efficiency orientation capabilities’ (Ca8), preceded by capabilities for ‘knowledge
management’ (Ca18) and ‘adaptability of institutions’ (Ca2), at 10th and 11th positions, respectively.
Collectively, the bottom 3 (i.e., Ca8, Ca18, and Ca2) account for 78 out of 180 possible bottom 3
rankings (i.e., 43.3%) for capability factors. Although Kendall’s test shows positive but relatively low
consensus for the panel (W = 0.185), the Friedman test (Friedman’s Q = 122.397, p value < 0.001)
indicate differences in the rating of capability readiness factors.
Figure 2 presents a breakdown of Delphi Round 2 ratings according to expert groups. The figure shows
that among the different expert groups, there is consensus on the top- and bottom-placed collaboration
readiness factors, i.e., Co3 and Co8 respectively, even though Co2 ties with Co8 at the bottom of the
rankings for government experts. However, for the top- and bottom-placed capability readiness factors,
the government and university experts chose Ca12 and Ca8, respectively, while the industry experts
chose Ca26 and Ca2 (with Ca12 and Ca8 occupying runner-up (second and eleventh) positions),
respectively.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Breakdown of Delphi Round 2 ratings according to expert groups on readiness factors for
(a) institutional collaboration, and (b) institutional capability.

5 DISCUSSION

Increasing trends towards digitalisation along with demands for customisation due to the fourth
industrial revolution (Machado et al., 2019), require ambidextrous mind-sets for efficacy in the
application of enabling technologies for Industry 4.0. From an institutional perspective, Industry 4.0
readiness is thus fundamental for institutions to support technology use by organisations and regions.
Guided by a constructivist stance, this research seeks to appraise how triple helix experts perceive
institutional change readiness factors for Industry 4.0. The next subsections discuss the theoretical and
managerial implications, limitations, and potential future research directions.
5.1 Theoretical insights
From a theoretical perspective, the research has implications for change readiness theory vis-à-vis an
institutional view of change readiness. Although existing theoretical framings (e.g., Armenakis et al.
(1993) and Weiner (2020)) present individual behaviour and organisational conditions as integral to
change readiness, analysing these framings suggests inadequacies in rendering institutional perspectives
of the change readiness concept. Furthermore, the factors that underlie institutional change readiness
are not fully understood. These institutional factors reflect considerations and mindfulness of potential
changes to established practices, conventions, and customs that aid socio-economic and technological
changes in society. Along these lines, this research extends and contributes to change readiness theory
by focusing on institutional factors, as opposed to individual, group, unit, department, or organisational
factors that dominates the debate within change readiness literature (Weiner; 2020; Turja et al., 2020;
Mullins & Agnihotri, 2022). It is now well established in this literature that readiness is needed for
environmental changes that pose challenges for leaders to enact organisational changes which in turn
trigger individual changes (Walinga, 2008). Perhaps equally important as these change perspectives
would be an institutional viewpoint that governs change readiness behaviour among individuals and
organisations. Environmental changes relate to societal trends and uncertainties, organisational changes
pertain to management strategies and capabilities, individual changes concern employee beliefs and
attitudes, but considerations for institutional changes allude to legal systems and governance. Research
to date has not yet determined the nature of institutional change readiness, which plays a key role in the
establishment and legitimisation of practices for and due to changes. Institutional considerations further
reinforce earlier change readiness conceptualisations (Armenakis et al., 1993) on the need for change
agent credibility, as determined by institutions, in change creation processes. Furthermore, critiquing
the foundations of change readiness theorisations is important because readiness varies as a function of
the impending change and how change participants appraise determinants for change implementation
(Weiner, 2020). Primarily, change readiness implies an inclusive view of imminent transitions and
transformations in society and our framing of institutional change readiness highlights the role of triple
helix actors for institutional change configurations (elaborating on the ‘who’ and ‘why’ of institutional
change readiness) and our Delphi approach deepens understanding on perceptions and prominence of
variables for institutional change conceptualisations (shedding light on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of
institutional change readiness).
Delphi findings additionally offer research implications and insights. For a start, from the first selection
round of the Delphi, the study finds 12 collaboration (Co1 to Co12) and 12 capability (Ca2, Ca4, Ca5,
Ca8, Ca6, Ca7, Ca9, Ca10, Ca11, Ca17, Ca22, and Ca25) factors as core to institutional change
readiness for Industry 4.0. These factors are selections by the expert panel from an initial set of 50
readiness factors, consisting of 23 collaboration (Co1 to Co23) and 21 capability (Ca1 to Ca27) factors,
derived from literature. Specifically, the situational factors selected by the expert panel from an array
of options represent informational assessments of change readiness for Industry 4.0. In current literature
(e.g., Basl & Doucek (2019) and Honti et al. (2020)), readiness for Industry 4.0 remains a key focus for
change readiness research with interests in the evaluations of technological, organisational, and regional
factors. Like these evaluations, this study offers an array of change readiness factors for clear plans and
policies related to Industry 4.0. For instance, Co11 to Co16 detail different forms of partnerships
required for collaboration while Ca14 to Ca19 capture specific knowledge competencies for Industry
4.0 readiness. Broadly, there is a diversity of institutional factors in the findings of this Delphi study
that encompasses technological (e.g., Co4 and Co10), organisational (e.g., Ca5 and Ca22), and regional
(e.g., Co16) concerns but the factors extend to wider considerations for society (e.g., Co14),
governments (e.g., Co15), finance (e.g., Co9), and so on. However, unlike current evaluations in the
literature, the source and framing of the change readiness challenge for Industry 4.0 centres on demands
for collaboration and capability readiness, and this research posits on these demands as a dyadic
challenge for institutions in relation to Industry 4.0. Like arguments made in the literature (e.g., Sawang
et al. (2017) and Hernández-Trasobares & Murillo-Luna (2020)), capability readiness for technological
competences institutionally sustains the trajectories of self-propagating technologies of the fourth
industrial revolution, while collaboration readiness for transdisciplinary partnerships institutionally
supports the use of Industry 4.0 enabling technologies.
From the second evaluation round of the Delphi, the study finds top-three priorities for institutional
change readiness involving clarity for collaborations based on expert knowledge and skills (Co3, Co4,
and Co5) and creativity for capabilities based on technology awareness and innovation (Ca12, Ca26,
and Ca6). Rather than viewing these readiness factors are mutually exclusive, this research draws on
institutional ambidexterity (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013) and argues for a co-existence of both sets of
factors or logics. The findings summarised by Tables 2 to 5 show relative consistency in the top-three
collaboration readiness factors, i.e., Co3, Co4, and Co5, but show variations for the capability readiness
factors among the expert groups. Ca12 is the first-placed factor for government and university experts,
and Ca26 is the first-placed for industry experts. Ca6, Ca7, and Ca12 are the second-placed factors for
government university and industry experts, respectively, while Ca26 is the third-placed factor for
government and university experts, and Ca6 is third-placed for industry experts. The Delphi findings,
as illustrated by Figure 2, suggest that strategic choices of readiness factors are made by the experts,
and vary for actors of the triple helix. Research studies (Samaranayake et al., 2017; Nhamo et al. 2020)
identify technology platforms, knowledge, and internet connectivity, as core choices for Industry 4.0
readiness. In contrast to these studies that offer mainly core technology-based choices, the Delphi
findings suggest a co-existence of ‘clarity-creativity’ institutional factors that aligns with an institutional
complementarity viewpoint (AlMalki and Durugbo, 2022). These strategic choices require reflections
by institutional actors on how each factor emphasises or improves other factors. Related research
(Castellano et al., 2019) also discusses a resource-based orientation of institutional ambidexterity,
which mainly involves institutional actors discovering different and developing current capabilities. In
this research, the focus on the complementary nature of readiness factors and awareness of the
proclivities of triple helix actors deepens knowledge of core factors, in support of recommendations for
joint readiness of institutional actors (Dickson and Weaver, 2011). Accordingly, top-three analysis that
is more inclusive could maintain the collaboration factors but adopt a four-factor approach (Ca12, Ca6,
Ca7, and Ca26) for capabilities to reflect the differing preferences of the groups.

5.2 Managerial relevance

From a managerial perspective, this research also has some implications. For a start, the research
recommends that managers consider organisational transitions due to Industry 4.0 as an institutional
quandary with implications for providing support systems to promote transdisciplinary collaboration.
Although premised on advances by the technology sector, the coverage and impact of Industry 4.0
extend to other institutions with applications in a variety of socioeconomic and environmental contexts.
With focus on professionalism during institutional collaboration implied by the Delphi findings, the
scope for institutional support systems for Industry 4.0 spans different public-private partnerships,
resources, and mind-sets, as captured by the collaboration readiness factors. Underpinning these factors
is institutional innovation with cognitive, normative, and regulative considerations, in line with
institutional theory (Meyer, 1977; Cai, 2015), and there is a need to integrate core concerns from various
perspectives of systematic conceptualisations (such as the triple helix) for institutional actors or agents
of change, as presented in Figure 2. Thus, an integration of factors proposed in this research could serve
as the pivot for reimagining institutional support systems to support non-technological innovation for
Industry 4.0.

Additionally, this research suggests that managers view societal transformations due to the fourth
industrial revolution as a regional dilemma with implications for devising action plans to build digital
capability. Extensive studies by futurists and economists note that workers of the future need to be agile
and flexible in their career mind-set and the fourth industrial revolution reinforces the urgency of digital
knowledge, skills, and competencies for the future workforce (Schwab, 2017; Nhamo et al., 2020; Honti
et al., 2020). With focus on proficiency of institutional capabilities suggested by the Delphi findings, it
becomes imperative that nations formulate dedicated action plans for capacity building. In the Kingdom
of Bahrain that serves as the context for this research, there are various government, energy efficiency,
renewable energy, biodiversity, and human rights actions plans. An awareness of the socioeconomic
implications of the fourth industrial revolution for the labour force warrants similar action plans for the
Kingdom in terms of strategic planning and investment for education, training, and skilling needs of the
populace. The capability readiness factors from this study could serve as the starting points for action
plans that detail institutional roadmaps of the fourth industrial revolution with identifiable investments
and initiatives for implementation. Due to the varying circumstances of different regions,
contextualising the core factors for capabilities according to the priorities of regional experts could
provide the fulcrum for enhancing the digital maturity level of industries and regions.
From a policy making perspective, this research promotes integrated analyses for the strategic planning
and foresight of Industry 4.0 based on viewpoints of the triple helix. Current research notes the role of
industrial, social innovation, education, public, monetary, and work policy initiatives (Buhr, 2015;
Nielsen et al., 2021 Poloz, 2021; Lele & Goswami, 2017). In advancement of these proposals, this
Delphi study argues for institutional innovation policy initiatives with ‘clarity-creativity’ orientations.
Specifically, the research amplifies the need for clarify goals of collaboration in policies initiatives such
as living labs and repopulated manufacturing ecosystems. Similarly, the research accentuates the
importance of creativity as a core attributes of Industry 4.0 capabilities, with implications on reskilling
and upskilling policy initiatives by governments. In literature, the Delphi methodology remains a potent
starting point for exploring and developing futures scenarios (Judd, 1972; Linstone and Turoff, 2002;
Moeuf et al., 2020) but the systematic inclusion of evaluations from a triple helix perspective adds a
layer of abstraction for understanding the requirements of institutional innovation.

5.3 Research limitations and future research directions

Guided by a methodological reflection on the Delphi exercise, this section highlights the main
limitations of this research. For the initialisation stage, the research sample involves triple helix experts
with insights originating mainly from managerial and policy levels. Thus, the research is limited in
capturing the viewpoints of other expert groups such as scientists, financers, and engineers. Analysing
and integrating these different viewpoints could contribute to a broader and comprehensive evaluation
of readiness factors. Similarly, the focus on data sourcing from Bahrain limits the generalisation of the
findings to potentially emerging economy and Middle Eastern regional contexts. For the
operationalisation stage, the data collection centres on collaboration-capability readiness demands for
institutional innovation. However, institutions rely on individuals as agents of change and the
collaboration-capability framing is limited in capturing institutional change readiness from the
viewpoint of institutional actors in relation to aspects such as attitudes, culture, values, and value
systems, etc. For the presentation stage, the data analysis relies on non-parametric tests for ordinal and
ranked data, and these tests are limited in their statistical power when compared to traditional parametric
approaches.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Using the case of Bahrain as an emerging economy, this research evaluates core institutional change
readiness factors for Industry 4.0 with the involvement of 71 purposively sampled university, industry,
and government experts. Applying the conventional Delphi approach, the research assesses 50
collaboration and capability readiness factors based on initialisation, operationalisation, and
presentation stages. The findings suggest core focus on ‘clarity of goals and relevance’, ‘technological
skills’, and ‘expert knowledge’ for institutional collaboration readiness and on ‘innovating
competencies’, ‘technology awareness’, and ‘creativity of institutional actors’ for institutional
capability readiness.

Theoretically, the research implies institutional framing for the problem of Industry 4.0 and change
readiness, proposes a ‘clarity-creativity' dyadic framing for regional technology management in the
fourth industrial revolution era, and recommends integrated analyses for strategic planning and
foresight of Industry 4.0 based on viewpoints of the triple helix. These framings seek to enrich debates
on factors that determine digital maturity levels and the research advances professionalism in
collaborations for institutionalising Industry 4.0 and proficiency of capabilities for regionalising the
fourth industrial revolution. Managerially, the research recommends harnessing insights from the
Delphi exercise for providing support systems that promote transdisciplinary collaboration and for
devising action plans that build digital capability.

Future research will study institutional roadmaps for support systems and action plans that advance the
fourth industrial revolution. Institutional change readiness for Industry 4.0 from the viewpoint of
institutional actors could also serve as the focus of further research with interpretivism and positivism
standpoints. Here, the recommendation is for qualitative cross- and within-case analyses as well as
quantitative cross-sectional and longitudinal examinations of the relationship between Industry 4.0
readiness factors. Conceptually, there are also workforce, legacy, security, education, entrepreneurial,
and ecosystem aspects of institutional change readiness that further the digital transitions and
transformations of the fourth industrial revolution, with challenges for examination of these aspects in
future studies.

To conclude, the emerging Industry 4.0 requires structural and behavioural changes that hinge on
technological and non-technological innovations afforded by institutions. On-going probes into and
reflections on readiness levels from an institutional perspective offers a potentially viable route for
bolstering the digital maturity level of industries and regions with consequential boosts in
socioeconomic and environment value for regions. Accordingly, this research expects that deepening
institutional knowledge on the necessities of Industry 4.0 readiness will aid in formulating new or
strengthening existing theories to support global strategies for institutionalising Industry 4.0 and in
uncovering new and exciting institutional phenomena, opportunities, and potentials.
References

Abdul-Hamid, A. Q., Ali, M. H., Osman, L. H., & Tseng, M. L. (2021). The drivers of industry 4.0 in
a circular economy: The palm oil industry in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 324, 129216.
Abzug, R, & Mezias, S. (1993). The fragmented state and due process protections in organizations: the
case of comparable worth. Organizations Science, 4(3), pp. 433-453.
Akins, R. B., Tolson, H., & Cole, B. R. (2005). Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel:
application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5(1), 1-12.
AlMalki, H. A., & Durugbo, C. M. (2023a). Evaluating critical institutional factors of Industry 4.0 for
education reform. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188, 122327.
AlMalki, H.A., Durugbo, C.M. (2023b). Systematic review of institutional innovation literature:
towards a multi-level management model. Management Review Quarterly, 73(2), 731–785
AlMalki, H.A., Durugbo C.M. (2022). Investigating institutional readiness for Industry 4.0 education:
towards an inclusive innovation model, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 1-27. Doi:
10.1080/19761597.2022.2056492
Andersen, J., & Bilfeldt, A. (2017). Transforming welfare institutions through social innovation and
action research in Denmark (Transformando instituciones de bienestar a través de la innovación
socialy la investigaciónacción en Dinamarca). International Journal of Action Research, 13(3), pp.
201-220
Antony, J., Sony, M., & McDermott, O. (2021). Conceptualizing Industry 4.0 readiness model
dimensions: an exploratory sequential mixed-method study. The TQM Journal.
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research
and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 127-142.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational
change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.
Arranz, N., F Arroyabe, M., & Fernandez de Arroyabe, J. C. (2019). Obstacles of innovation and
institutional support in the cooperation agreements: The Spanish case. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 23(4), 696-712.
Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Kemp, R., & Haxeltine, A. (2017). Game-changers and transformative
social innovation. Ecology and Society, 22(4), 41.
Bailey, D., & De Propris, L. (2019). 6. Industry 4.0, regional disparities and transformative industrial
policy. Regional Studies Policy Impact Books, 1(2), 67-78.
Bakir, C., & Gunduz, A. (2017). When, why and how institutional change takes place: a systematic
review and a future research agenda on the importance of policy entrepreneurship in macroeconomic
bureaucracies. Policy and Society, 36(4), pp. 479–503
Barasa, L., Knoben, J., Vermeulen, P., Kimuyu, P., & Kinyanjui, B. (2017). Institutions, resources, and
innovation in East Africa: a firm level approach. Research Policy, 46(1), pp. 280-291
Barrie, J., & Zawdie, G., Joao, E. (2019). Assessing the role of triple helix system intermediaries in
nurturing an industrial biotechnology innovation network. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, pp.
209-223
Basl, J., & Doucek, P. (2019). Metamodel for evaluating enterprise readiness in the context of Industry
4.0. Information, 10(89).
Beiderbeck, D., Frevel, N., von der Gracht, H. A., Schmidt, S. L., & Schweitzer, V. M. (2021).
Preparing, conducting, and analyzing Delphi surveys: Cross-disciplinary practices, new directions,
and advancements. MethodsX, 8, 101401
Bibby, L., & Dehe, B. (2018). Defining and assessing industry 4.0 maturity levels–case of the defence
sector. Production Planning & Control, 29(12), 1030-1043.
Bilbao-Ubillos, J., Camino-Beldarrain, V., & Intxaurburu-Clemente, G. (2021). Industry 4.0, proximity
constraints and new challenges for industrial policy. European Planning Studies, 29(2), 329-345.
Biurrun, A. (2022). New evidence toward solving the puzzle of innovation and inequality. The role of
institutions. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 31(8), 729–750.
Borges, P., Araújo, L., FerreiraGhesti, L., Carmo, G., & Souza, T. (2020). The triple helix model and
intellectual property: The case of the University of Brasilia. World Patent Information, 60
Boudreau, K., & Lakhani, K. (2016). Innovation Experiments: Researching Technical Advance,
Knowledge Production, and the Design of Supporting Institutions. Innovation Policy and the
Economy, 16(1), pp. 135-167
Brem, A., & Radziwon, A. (2017). Efficient Triple Helix collaboration fostering local niche innovation
projects – A case from Denmark. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, pp. 130-141.
Buhr, D. (2015). Social innovation policy for Industry 4.0. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Division
for Social and Economic Policies.
Cai, Y. (2014). Implementing the Triple Helix model in a non-Western context: an institutional logics
perspective. Triple Helix, 1(1), 1-20.
Cai, Y. (2015). What contextual factors shape ‘innovation in innovation’? Integration of insights from
the Triple Helix and the institutional logics perspective. Social Science information, 54(3), 299-326.
Cai, Y., & Amaral, M. (2021). The triple helix model and the future of innovation: a reflection on the
triple helix research agenda. Triple Helix, 8(2), 217-229.
Castellano, S., Khelladi, I., & Ivanaj, S. (2019). Entrepreneurial intensity and firm performance: The
role of institutional ambidexterity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(2), 350-
359.
Castelo-Branco, I., Cruz-Jesus, F., & Oliveira, T. (2019). Assessing Industry 4.0 readiness in
manufacturing: Evidence for the European Union. Computers in Industry, 107, 22-32.
Chen, S. H., Egbetokun, A. A., & Chen, D. K. (2015). Brokering knowledge in networks: institutional
intermediaries in the Taiwanese biopharmaceutical innovation system. International Journal of
Technology Management, 69(3-4), 189-209.
Chirumalla, K. (2021). Building digitally-enabled process innovation in the process industries: A
dynamic capabilities approach. Technovation, 102256.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to
Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Clark, N. (2002). Innovation systems, institutional change and the new knowledge market: implications
for third world agricultural development. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11(4-5),
pp. 353-368
Cochran, G. (1950). The Comparison of Percentages in Matched Samples. Biometrika 37 (3–4), pp.
256–266
Colombo, A., Schleuter, D., & Kircher, M. (2015). An approach to qualify human resources supporting
the migration of SMEs into an Industry 4.0-compliant company infrastructure. In Proceedings of
IECON 2015 Yokohama, pp. 003761–003766. Yokohama: IEEE
Corsi, C., & Prencipe, A. (2019). High-Tech Entrepreneurial Firms’ Innovation in Different
Institutional Settings. Do Venture Capital and Private Equity Have Complementary or Substitute
Effects? Industry and Innovation, 26(9), pp. 1023-1074
Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334.
Culot, G., Orzes, G., Sartor, M., & Nassimbeni, G. (2020). The future of manufacturing: A Delphi-
based scenario analysis on Industry 4.0. Technological forecasting and social change, 157, 120092.
d'Agostino, G., & Scarlato, M. (2019). Knowledge externalities, innovation and growth in European
countries: the role of institutions. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 28(1), pp. 82-99
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of
Experts. Management Science. 9(3), pp. 458-467
Davies, R., Coole, T., & Smith, A. (2017). Review of Socio-technical Considerations to Ensure
Successful Implementation of Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing, (11), pp.1288-1295
de la Mothe, J., 2004. The institutional governance of technology, society, and innovation. Technology
in Society, 26 (2–3), 523–536.
De Rozario, P. (2016). The innovation dilemma in the financial industry: French domestic credit
institutions. Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability, 11, 161-
177
Dickson, P. H., & Weaver, K. M. (2011). Institutional readiness and small to medium‐sized enterprise
alliance formation. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 126-148.
Domlyn, A., & Wandersman, A. (2019). Community coalition readiness for implementing something
new: Using a Delphi methodology. Journal Community Psychology. 47(4), pp. 882-897.
Durugbo, C. M., Al-Balushi, Z., Anouze, A., & Amoudi, O. (2020). Critical indices and model of
uncertainty perception for regional supply chains: insights from a Delphi-based study. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 25(5), 549-564.
Durugbo, C. M., Amoudi, O., Al-Balushi, Z., & Anouze, A. L. (2021a). Wisdom from Arabian
networks: a review and theory of regional supply chain management. Production Planning &
Control, 32(15), 1265-1281.
Durugbo, C. M., Anouze, A. L., Amoudi, O., & Al-Balushi, Z. (2021b). Competitive priorities for
regional operations: a Delphi study. Production Planning & Control, 32(15), 1295-1312.
Durugbo, C. M., & Al-Balushi, Z. (2022). Supply chain management in times of crisis: a systematic
review. Management Review Quarterly, 1-54. Doi: 10.1007/s11301-022-00272-x.
Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. Routledge,
London.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: a "triple helix" of university-industry-
government relations. Introduction. Minerva, 36(3), pp. 203-208.
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2006). Triple Helix twins: innovation and sustainability. Science and Public
Policy, 33(1), 77-83.
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2018). Innovation incommensurability and the science park. R&D
Management, 48(1), 73-87.
Friedman, M., 1937. the use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of
variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association 32, 675.
Gilchrist, A. (2016). Industry 4.0: The Industrial Internet of Things, Springer, Heidelberg.
Glasersfeld, E. (2005). Aspects of Constructivism. In: C.T. Fosnot, ed. Constructivism: Theory,
Perspectives, and Practice, Second Edition. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 2–7.
Gökalp, E., Şener, U., & Eren, P. E. (2017, October). Development of an assessment model for industry
4.0: industry 4.0-MM. In International Conference on Software Process Improvement and
Capability Determination (pp. 128-142). Springer, Cham.
Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2017). The impact of Triple Helix agents on entrepreneurial innovations’
performance: An inside look at enterprises located in an emerging economy. Technological
Forecasting & Social Change, 119, pp. 294–309.
Hage, J., & Hollingsworth, J. (2000). A Strategy for the analysis of idea innovation networks and
institutions. Organization Studies, 21(5), pp. 971-1004
Harder, A., Place, T., & Scheer, D. (2010). Towards a competency-based extension education
curriculum: A Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(3), 44–52
Hermann, M., Pentek, T. and Otto, B. (2016) Design Principles for Industrie 4.0 Scenarios. Proceedings
of 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences HICSS, Koloa, 5-8 January 2016,
3928-3937. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.488.
Hernández-Trasobares, A., & Murillo-Luna, J. (2020). The effect of triple helix cooperation on business
innovation: The case of Spain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161.
Honti, G., Czvetkó, T., & Abonyi, J. (2020). Data describing the regional Industry 4.0 readiness
index. Data in Brief, 33, 106464.
Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M., Johnson, R., & Grossman, W. (2002). Conflicting voices: the effects of
institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), pp. 697-716
Hou, B., Hong, J., Chen, Q., Shi, X., & Zhou, Y. (2019). Do Academia-Industry R&D Collaborations
Necessarily Facilitate Industrial Innovation in China? The Role of Technology Transfer Institutions.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(5), pp. 717-746
International Federation of Robotics. 2021. Highlights. Accessed 3 February 2022. https://ifr.org/.
Ivanova, A., & Leydesdorf, L. (2014). Rotational symmetry and the transformation of innovation
systems in a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Technological Forecasting
& Social Change 86, pp. 143-156.
Ivascu, L. (2020). Measuring the implications of sustainable manufacturing in the context of industry
4.0. Processes, 8(5), 585.
James, D., & Etzkowitz, H. (2007). The Triple Helix of Innovation: Towards a University-Led
Development Strategy for Africa. ATDF Journal 4(2), pp. 3-9.
Janahi, N. A., Durugbo, C. M., & Al‐Jayyousi, O. R. (2022). Critical network factors for eco‐innovation
in manufacturing: A Delphi study from a triple helix perspective. Business Strategy and the
Environment. doi:10.1002/bse.3320
Jarzabkowski, P., Smets, M., Bednarek, R., Burke, G. and Spee, P. (2013). Institutional Ambidexterity:
Leveraging Institutional Complexity in Practice. In Lounsbury, M. and Boxenbaum, E. (Ed.)
Institutional Logics in Action, Part B (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 39 Part B),
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 37-61
Jazdi, N. 2014. Cyber physical systems in the context of Industry 4.0, IEEE International Conference
on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 22-24 May
2014,. doi: 10.1109/AQTR.2014.6857843
Judd, R. C. (1972). Use of Delphi methods in higher education. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 4(2), 173-186.
Jules, T. D. (Ed.). (2016). The Global Educational Policy Environment in the Fourth Industrial
Revolution: Gated, Regulated and Governed. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley
Kattan, B. (2017). Powered by Education, East Asia is Getting Ready for the Fourth Industrial
Revolution. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from http://blogs.worldbank.org/education/education-
eastasia-fourth-industrial-revolution
Kendall, M.G. (1948). Rank Correlation Methods. Griffin, London.
Klassen, R., & Whybark, D. (1994). Barriers to the management of international operations. Journal of
Operations Management. 11(4), pp. 385-396.
Kooijman, M., Hekkert, M., Van Meer, P., Moors, E., & Schellekens, H. (2017). How Institutional
Logics Hamper Innovation: The Case of Animal Testing. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 118, pp. 70-79
Kraft, P.S., & Bausch, A. (2018). Managerial social networks and innovation: a meta-analysis of
bonding and bridging effects across institutional environments. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 35(6), pp. 865-889
Lasi, H., Fettke P., Georg Kemper, H. & Feld, H. (2014). Industry 4.0. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 6(4), pp. 239-242
Lee, Y., Moon, G. G., & Kwon, Y. K. (2019). Implementing liberal arts education in the era of the
Fourth Industrial Revolution: lessons and implications for Korea’s higher education
policy. International Review of Public Administration, 24(4), 282-294.
Lele, U., & Goswami, S. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution, agricultural and rural innovation, and
implications for public policy and investments: a case of India. Agricultural Economics, 48(S1), 87-
100.
Lerman, L. V., Gerstlberger, W., Lima, M. F., & Frank, A. G. (2021). How governments, universities,
and companies contribute to renewable energy development? A municipal innovation policy
perspective of the triple helix. Energy Research & Social Science, 71, 101854.
Leydesdorff, L., & Ivanova, I. (2016). “Open innovation” and “triple helix” models of innovation: Can
synergy in innovation systems be measured? J. Open Innovation Technological Marketing Complex,
2(11).
Leydesdorff, L., & Zawdie, G. (2010). The triple helix perspective of innovation systems. Technology
analysis & strategic management, 22(7), 789-804.
Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, H., Ivanova, I., & Meyer, M. (2017). The measurement of synergy in
innovation systems: redundancy generation in a triple helix of university-industry-government
relations. Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. Heidelberg: Springer.
Li, H., Sheng, Y., & Yan, X. (2020). Empirical Research on the Level of Institutional Innovation in the
Development of China’s High-Tech Industry. IEEE Access, 8, 115800-115811.
Li, J. and Xing, J., 2020. Why Is Collaborative Agglomeration of Innovation so Important for Improving
Regional Innovation Capabilities? A Perspective Based on Collaborative Agglomeration of
Industry-University-Research Institution. Complexity, 2020.
Li, M., He, L., & Zhao, Y. (2020). The triple helix system and regional entrepreneurship in
China. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32(7-8), 508-530.
Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M., 2002. The Delphi Method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Lopes, J., Oliveira, M., Lopes, J., & Zaman, U. (2021). Networks, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer
in Tourism Industry: An Empirical Study of SMEs in Portugal. Social Sciences 10(159).
Luengo-Valderrey, M., Pando-García, J., Periáñez-Cañadillas, I., & Cervera-Taulet, A. (2020).
Analysis of the Impact of the Triple Helix on Sustainable Innovation Targets in Spanish Technology
Companies. Sustainability, 12.
Machado, C. G., Winroth, M., Carlsson, D., Almström, P., Centerholt, V., & Hallin, M. (2019). Industry
4.0 readiness in manufacturing companies: challenges and enablers towards increased
digitalization. Procedia Cirp, 81, 1113-1118.
Manyika, J., Lund, S., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Woetzel, J., Batra, P, Ko, R., & Sanghvi, S. (2017). Jobs
lost, jobs gained: Workforce transitions in a time of automation. McKinsey Global Institute, 150.
Martin, G., Siebert, S., & Robson, I. (2018). Conformist Innovation: An Institutional Logics Perspective
on How HR Executives Construct Business School Reputations. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 29(13), pp. 2027-2053
McNemar, Q., 1947. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or
percentages. Psychometrika 12, 153–157
Megnigbeto, E. (2018). Modelling the Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relationships
with Game Theory: Core, Shapley Value and Nucleolus as Indicators of Synergy within an
Innovation System. Journal of Informetric, 12(4), pp. 1118–1132.
Meyer, J. W. (1977). The Effects of Education as an Institution. The American Journal of Sociology,
83, (1), pp. 55-77
Meyer, M.A., & Booker, J.M. (2001). Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment. Philadelphia: Society
for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Meyer, U. (2019). The emergence of an envisioned future. Sensemaking in the case of “Industrie 4.0”
in Germany. Futures, 109, 130-141
Moeuf, A., Lamouri, S., Pellerin, R., Tamayo-Giraldo, S., Tobon-Valencia, E., & Eburdy, R. (2020).
Identification of critical success factors, risks and opportunities of Industry 4.0 in
SMEs. International Journal of Production Research, 58(5), 1384-1400.
Mohsen, K., Saeed, S., Raza, A., Omar, S., and Muffatto, M., 2021. Does using latest technologies
impact new venture innovation? A contingency-based view of institutional environments. Journal of
Small Business Management, 59 (4), 852–886.
Moore, G., 2011. Institutional Innovation: Re-invigorating the University through Transdisciplinary
Engagement. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global
Sustainable Information Society, 9 (2), 598–609.
Morrar, R., Arman, H., & Mousa, S. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0): A social
innovation perspective. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(11), 12-20.
Mueller, V., Rosenbusch, N., & Bausch, A. (2013). Success Patterns of Exploratory and Exploitative
Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of the Influence of Institutional Factors. Journal of Management,
39(6), pp. 1606-1636
Mukherjee, N., Zabala, A., Huge, J., Nyumba, T.O., Adem Esmail, B., Sutherland, W.J., 2018.
Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision-making. Methods in
Ecology and Evolution 9, 54–63.
Mullins, R., & Agnihotri, R. (2022). Digital selling: organizational and managerial influences for
frontline readiness and effectiveness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(4), 800-821.
Nhamo, G., Nhemachena, C., & Nhamo, S. (2020). Using ICT indicators to measure readiness of
countries to implement Industry 4.0 and the SDGs. Environmental Economics and Policy
Studies, 22(2), 315-337.
Nielsen, P., Holm, J. R., & Lorenz, E. (2021). Work policy and automation in the fourth industrial
revolution. In Christensen, J. L., Gregersen, B., Holm, J. R., & Lorenz, E. (Eds.). Globalisation, New
and Emerging Technologies, and Sustainable Development: The Danish Innovation System in
Transition. (pp. 189-207). Routledge, London.
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design
considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29.
Pacchini, A. P. T., Lucato, W. C., Facchini, F., & Mummolo, G. (2019). The degree of readiness for the
implementation of Industry 4.0. Computers in Industry, 113, 103125.
Park, W. (2020). Invisible college within triple helix and social network studies in the age of big
data. Qual Quant 54, pp. 193–195
Penprase, B. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Higher Education. In: Gleason N. (eds)
Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
Piccarozzi, M., Aquilani, B., & Gatti, C. (2018). Industry 4.0 in management studies: A systematic
literature review. Sustainability, 10(10), 3821.
Pinho, J. (2017). Institutional theory and global entrepreneurship: exploring differences between factor-
versus innovation-driven countries. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 15(1), pp. 56-84
Pique, J. M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Etzkowitz, H. (2018). Triple Helix and the evolution of
ecosystems of innovation: the case of Silicon Valley. Triple Helix, 5(1), 1-21.
Poloz, S. S. (2021). Technological progress and monetary policy: Managing the fourth industrial
revolution. Journal of International Money and Finance, 114, 102373.
Polzin, F., Von Flotow, P., & Klerkx, L. (2016). Addressing Barriers to Eco-Innovation: Exploring the
Finance Mobilization Functions of Institutional Innovation Intermediaries. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 103, pp. 34-46
Prasetio, A., Aboobaider, B., & Ahmad, A. (2021). Assessing impact of triple helix variables to
knowledge transfer variable and innovation systems. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics
Education, 12(4), 1690-1700.
Psycharis, S. (2005). Presumptions and Action Affecting An e-learning Adoption by The Educational
System. Implementation Using Virtual Private Networks. European Journal of Open and Distance
Learning, 2, 1-10.
Pugh, R. (2017). Universities and economic development in lagging regions: ‘Triple helix’ policy in
Wales. Regional Studies, 51(7), 982-993.
Putnam, J. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. (1995). Future directions in education and inclusion
of students with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61(6), 553-576.
Raffaelli, R, & Glynn, M. (2015). Institutional Innovation: Novel, Useful, and Legitimate. In the
Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, edited by Christina E. Shalley,
Michael A. Hitt, and Jing Zhou. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Rajnai, Z., Kocsis, I., & Fregan, B. (2018). Risks of Industry 4.0 and Digitization. Műszaki Tudományos
Közlemények, (9), pp. 88-90.
Ramirez, M. (2007). Redefining firm competencies, innovation and labour mobility: A case study in
telecommunication services. Industry and Innovation, 14(3), 325-347.
Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for Innovation
Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and Higher Education, 27(4), pp. 237-262
Reefke, H. and Sundaram, D. (2018). Sustainable supply chain management: Decision models for
transformation and maturity, Decision Support Systems, 113, 56–72.
Richardson, D., De Leeuw, S., & and Dullaert, W. (2016). Factors Affecting Global Inventory
Prepositioning Locations in Humanitarian Operations—A Delphi Study. Journal of Business
logistics. 37(1), pp. 59
Rodima-Taylor, D., Olwig, M.F., & Chhetri, N. (2012). Adaptation as Innovation, Innovation as
Adaptation: An Institutional Approach to Climate Change. Applied Geography, 33(1), pp. 107-111
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Rojko, A. (2017). Industry 4.0 Concept: Background and Overview. International Journal of Mobile
Technology, 11(5), 77–90.
Rosenbusch, N., Gusenbauer, M., Hatak, I., Fink, M., & Meyer, K. (2019). Innovation Offshoring,
Institutional Context, and Innovation Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management
Studies, 56(1), pp. 203-233
Ruttan, V.W. and Hayami, Y., 1984. Toward a theory of induced institutional innovation. The Journal
of Development Studies, 20 (4), 203–223.
Samaranayake, P., Ramanathan, K., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2017, December). Implementing industry
4.0—A technological readiness perspective. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) (pp. 529-533). IEEE.
Santaguida, P., Dolovich, L., Oliver, D., Lamarche, L., Gilsing, A., Griffith, L. E., Richardson, J.,
Mangin, D., Kastner, M. & Raina, P. (2018). Protocol for a Delphi consensus exercise to identify a
core set of criteria for selecting health related outcome measures (HROM) to be used in primary
health care. BMC Family Practice, 19(1), 1-14.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students. 6th edition,
Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
Sawang, S., Zhou, Y., & Yang, X. (2017). Does Institutional Context Matter in Building Innovation
Capability? International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 9(2),
pp. 153-168
Schmidt, R. (1997). Managing Delphi Surveys Using Nonparametric Statistical Techniques. Decision
Sciences. 28(3), 763-774
Schroeder, A., Ziaee Bigdeli, A., Galera Zarco, C., & Baines, T. (2019). Capturing the benefits of
industry 4.0: a business network perspective. Production Planning & Control, 30(16), 1305-1321.
Schumacher, A., Erol, S., & Sihn, W. (2016). A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness
and maturity of manufacturing enterprises. Procedia Cirp, 52, 161-166.
Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution: what it means and how to respond.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-
how-to-respond, August 20, 2020
Scott, W.R. (2006) Institutions and Organisations. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Shayganmehr, M., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Moktadir, M. A. (2021). Industry 4.0 enablers for
a cleaner production and circular economy within the context of business ethics: a study in a
developing country. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125280.
Smith, H. L., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2010). Triple helix and regional development: a perspective from
Oxfordshire in the UK. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(7), 805-818.
Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2019). Key ingredients for evaluating Industry 4.0 readiness for organizations: a
literature review. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(7), 2213-2232.
Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2020). Critical factors for the successful implementation of Industry 4.0: a review
and future research direction. Production Planning & Control, 31(10), 799-815.
Stentoft, J., Adsbøll Wickstrøm, K., Philipsen, K., & Haug, A. (2021). Drivers and barriers for Industry
4.0 readiness and practice: empirical evidence from small and medium-sized
manufacturers. Production Planning and Control, 32(10), 811-828.
Subrahmanya, M. B. (2019). Role of the triple helix in the ecosystems for tech start-ups in India: a gap
analysis. Global Business and Economics Review, 21(3-4), 450-473.
Tang, Y., Hu, X., Petti, C., and Thürer, M., 2020. Institutional incentives and pressures in Chinese
manufacturing firms’ innovation. Management Decision, 58 (5), 812–827.
Tumbas, S., Berente, N., & Vom Brocke, J. (2018). Digital Innovation and Institutional
Entrepreneurship: Chief Digital Officer Perspectives of Their Emerging Role. Journal of
Information Technology, 33(3), pp. 188-202
Turja, T., Taipale, S., Kaakinen, M., & Oksanen, A. (2020). Care workers’ readiness for robotization:
identifying psychological and socio-demographic determinants. International Journal of Social
Robotics, 12(1), 79-90.
Ustundag, A., & Cevikcan, E. (2017). Industry 4.0: managing the digital transformation. Springer,
Cham.
Van Zolingen, S. J., & Klaassen, C. A. (2003). Selection processes in a Delphi study about key
qualifications in senior secondary vocational education. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 70(4), 317-340.
Veiga, P.M., Teixeira, S.J., Figueiredo, R., and Fernandes, C.I., 2020. Entrepreneurship, innovation and
competitiveness: A public institution love triangle. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 72.
Viale, R., & Pozzali, A. (2010). Complex adaptive systems and the evolutionary triple helix. Critical
Sociology, 36(4), 575-594.
Vrchota, J., Mařiková, M., Řehoř, P., Rolínek, L., & Toušek, R. (2020). Human resources readiness for
industry 4.0. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(1), 3.
Waldorff, S. (2013). Accounting for Organizational Innovations: Mobilizing Institutional Logics in
Translation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29(3), pp. 219-234
Walinga, J. (2008). Toward a theory of change readiness: The roles of appraisal, focus, and perceived
control. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(3), 315-347.
Wang, L. and Huang, Z., 2020. Research on the Synergetic Innovation between Pharmaceutical
Enterprises and Scientific Research Institutions Based on the Quantum Game. IEEE Access, 8,
63718–63724.
Wankhede, V. A., & Vinodh, S. (2022). Benchmarking Industry 4.0 readiness evaluation using fuzzy
approaches. Benchmarking: An International Journal. doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2021-0505
Webster, A., & Gardner, J. (2019). Aligning Technology and Institutional Readiness: The Adoption of
Innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 31(10), pp. 1229-1241
Weiner, B. J. (2020). A theory of organizational readiness for change. In Handbook on implementation
science (pp. 215-232). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wijiharjono, N. (2021). The Triple Helix and the Innovation Capability: A Conceptual Framework for
Creative Economic Marketing. AGREGAT: Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis, 5(1), 56-77.
Woodhill, J. (2010). Capacities for Institutional Innovation: A Complexity Perspective. Journal
compilation, 41(3), 47-59.
World Economic Forum. 2019. In Focus. Accessed 7 June 2020. https://www.weforum.org/focus.
Wu, J., Wang, C., Hong, J., Piperopoulos, P., & Zhuo, S. (2016). Internationalization and Innovation
Performance of Emerging Market Enterprises: The Role of Host-Country Institutional Development.
Journal of World Business, 51(2), pp. 251-263
Xie, J., & Yang, Y. (2021). IoT-based model for intelligent innovation practice system in higher
education institutions. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 40(2), 2861-2870.
Xu, L. D., Xu, E. L., & Li, L. (2018). Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends. International
Journal of Production Research, 56(8), 2941-2962.
Yang, G. (2018). The cost of institutional innovation in the absence of an external governance
mechanism — a case study on the ‘Alibaba Partnership’. China Journal of Accounting Studies, 6(4),
pp. 498-526.
Zanello, G., Fu, X., Mohnen, P., & Ventresca, M. (2016). The creation and diffusion of innovation in
developing countries: a systematic literature review. Journal of Economy Survey, 30(5), pp. 884-912
Zutin, G. C., Barbosa, G. F., de Barros, P. C., Tiburtino, E. B., Kawano, F. L. F., & Shiki, S. B. (2022).
Readiness levels of Industry 4.0 technologies applied to aircraft manufacturing-a review, challenges
and trends. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 120(1-2), 927-943.