SMME Readiness for Smart Manufacturing (4IR)
Adoption: A Systematic Review

Lucas Gumbi, Hossana Twinomurinzi

► To cite this version:

Lucas Gumbi, Hossana Twinomurinzi. SMME Readiness for Smart Manufacturing (4IR) Adoption: A Systematic Review. 19th Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (I3E), Apr 2020, Skukuza, South Africa. pp.41-54, 10.1007/978-3-030-44999-5_4. hal-03222825

HAL Id: hal-03222825

https://inria.hal.science/hal-03222825

Submitted on 10 May 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# SMME Readiness for Smart Manufacturing (4IR)
## Adoption: A Systematic Review

Lucas Gumbi¹[0000-0002-5483-8349] and Hossana Twinomurinzi²[0000-0002-9811-3358]

¹ University of South Africa, 28 Pioneer Ave, Florida Park, Roodepoort, South Africa
58563199@mylife.unisa.ac.za

² University of South Africa, 28 Pioneer Ave, Florida Park, Roodepoort, South Africa
twinoh@unisa.ac.za

**Abstract.** Smart manufacturing, Industry 4.0 and Smart Factory are phenomena regarded as a key necessity for Small, Medium and Micro Businesses (SMMEs) worldwide. Even though these 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR) phenomena are generally used interchangeably, this paper sought to identify how SMME readiness for smart manufacturing has been investigated through a systematic review. The systematic review was conducted through the lens of Nootboom, and Tor natzky and Klein's research on technological innovation in SMMEs based on Rogers' diffusion of innovations theory. The findings reveal that there is little to no research on smart manufacturing in relation to SMMEs in low-income coun tries particularly the African continent. The results also show that smart manu facturing is still an emergent phenomenon with disparate definitional challenges. These definitional challenges make the adoption of smart manufacturing innova tions a challenge in resource-constrained contexts; but similarly present an op portunity for new definitions and theories in such contexts. The little research often treats SMMEs homogenously and as such misses their important heteroge neous (sector or industry specific) nature. Few research studies investigate SMME awareness (adequate knowledge) or make explicit the benefits (relative advantage) of smart manufacturing. Even fewer studies are explicit on the smart manufacturing technologies that are relevant for different SMME sectors. Smart manufacturing is identified as incompatible with SMME characteristics, that is SMMEs lack expertise/skills to comprehend the complexity of smart manufac turing, and also lack financial and human resources to implement smart manu facturing. Given that awareness, relative advantage, complexity and compatibil ity are critical barriers for SMME smart manufacturing readiness/adoption, there is a critical need for research to focus on these factors in particular for the context of resource constrained low-income country environments.

**Keywords:** Smart Manufacturing, Industry 4.0, SMMEs, 4th Industrial Revolu tion, 4IR

## 1 Introduction

Smart Manufacturing is an emerging 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR) phenomena as a result of the convergence of various Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) that improve manufacturing factors such as productivity, quality, delivery and flexibility [1-4]. Smart manufacturing relates to enabling industries and their manu-facturing ecosystems to connect and adopt novel efficiency gains along their value and supply chains [5]. Smart Manufacturing as a new technological innovation is also seen as a key driver of improved manufacturing operations [6, 7] and a catalyst of manufac-turing intelligence [8].

However, despite all the mentioned benefits, SMMEs are not ready for the adoption and implementation of smart manufacturing as compared to larger firms [9-12]. Jun et al. [9] attribute this to the SMME environment, their underdeveloped capabilities, and practical limitations such as cost and personnel. Muller and Voigt [10] suggest that the challenge is with SMME business model constraints, while Luff [12] and Safar et al. [11] highlight the issue of lack of resources as the primary constraint.

There have been other systematic reviews [5, 13–18] to understand the factors in-
hibiting smart manufacturing adoption and implementation by SMMEs. Those reviews
focused on different dimensions [5, 13–16] and contextual perspectives [17, 18]. For
example, Mittal et al. [5, 13, 14] focused specifically on maturity models, while Hamdi
[16] and Moeuf et al. [15] focused on Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and organ-
isational dimensions respectively. Nowotarski and Paslawski [17], and Sommer et al.
[18] focused on Germany and the construction sector.

In this paper, the objective is to understand the level of SMME readiness/adoption for smart manufacturing and how this has been researched from the perspective of innovation. The rationale for the research objective was derived from Nooteboom [19, 20] and Tornatzky and Klein's [21] work on SMMEs underpinned by Roger's diffusion of innovations theory [22]. Building on the diffusion of innovation theory [22], Nooteboom [19, 20] identified the first stage of the SMME adoption process as awareness; adequate knowledge about the innovation to be adopted. While awareness is generally a given for large firms and technology-oriented SMMEs, it is a key barrier for technology-following and non-technological SMMEs with regard to readiness for adoption [19, 20, 23].

The adoption and diffusion of new technological innovations is contingent on three
characteristics: the relative advantage (benefits) of the technological innovation, the
complexity of the technological innovation, and the compatibility of the technological
innovation [21]. Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived
as being better than the idea it supersedes, complexity is the degree to which an inno-
vation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use, while compatibility is
the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values,
past experiences, and needs of potential adopters [21].

The systematic review specifically focuses on the context of the research (low-in-
come or high-income country), the awareness (adequate knowledge), benefits (relative
advantage), the technological innovations and readiness/adoption as important dimen-
sions of interest. Based on the objective this review differentiates itself from previous
similar reviews [5, 13–18].

The paper therefore sought to find answers from the review for the following re-
search questions (RQ):
RQ1: What is the state of awareness (adequate knowledge) of SMMEs in relation to smart manufacturing?

RQ2: What are the benefits of smart manufacturing in relation to SMMEs?

RQ3: Which technologies are seen as key to the concept of smart manufacturing in relation to SMMEs?

RQ4: What is the state of smart manufacturing readiness and adoption by SMMEs?

The rest of the paper is structured as follows, section 2 presents the review methodology. Section 3 presents the results of the review and the research gaps. The conclusions, limitations and future work are presented in Section 4.

## 2 Methodology

The study followed Lage and Junior's [24] systematic review protocol, and used the reporting approach of Amui et al's [25]. The SLR considered publications, which followed the formal introduction of Industry 4.0 that is from 2011 onwards. The time period for article selection was October 2018 to January 2019, while the analysis of the articles was from February 2019 to July 2019. A schematic representation of the adopted review protocol is shown in Figure 1 below.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. A schematic representation for the adopted methodology and results framework for this study</figcaption></figure>

### 2.1 Identification of the Research Articles

The first step was identifying the research articles through; (1) the construction of the search terms, (2) identifying the relevant data sources and (3) inclusion and exclusion criteria.

### 2.2 Construction of the Search Terms.

The construction of the search terms was primarily derived from RQ1, RQ2, RQ3 and RQ4. These search strings were constructed based on the *Unit of Analysis* (SMMEs),
*Technology Artefact* (Smart Manufacturing/Industry 4.0/Smart Factory) and *Phenomenon of Interest* (Adoption/Trends/Benefits/Technologies/Issues). The full details of the 33 constructed search strings are presented in Appendix 1 found on http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19652.17285.

**2.3 Identification of the Data Sources**

Smart Manufacturing (industry 4.0) is based on the convergence of various technologies and the integration of multiple disciplines and domains such as mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science and other related fields [1, 26]. The multidisciplinary nature of smart manufacturing meant that the review needed to perform the search in similar multidisciplinary research databases. The study therefore chose the four that are most commonly used by multidisciplinary researchers [27–33]; Web of Science (WoS), Academic Search Premier (ASP), ScienceDirect and Google Scholar.

**2.4 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria**

Using the constructed search terms, 279 articles were identified from the four databases (Figure 2) in the first iteration. This first iteration was based on the following inclusion criteria:

* Articles that mention smart manufacturing or industry 4.0 or smart factory within their content or title

* All industries or sectors (not just manufacturing)

* Peer reviewed journal or conference articles

* Articles written in English

In the second iteration, after removing duplications from different databases, 177 articles were excluded based on the review of titles and abstract. These articles were excluded based on the following exclusion criteria:

* Articles that merely mention some of the search terms, but do not solely focus on smart manufacturing, industry 4.0 or smart factory concepts

* Articles focusing on one specific application of a particular technology in relation to smart manufacturing or industry 4.0 or smart factory

* Articles that do not focus on SMMEs

* Articles that merely mention SMMEs

In the final round of the iteration process, 72 articles were excluded based on the analysis of the full text of the articles. The remainder of the articles (30 peer reviewed journals and conference papers) were determined to be relevant for this review (See Appendix 2 Table 10 on http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19652.17285 for the articles selected for this review). The primary exclusion criteria was the following:
* Articles that do not discuss any of the four study dimensions (awareness: adequate knowledge, benefits, technologies and readiness/adoption) discussed in section 1 within their content

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** A schematic representation of the inclusion and exclusion process</figcaption></figure>

## 2.5 A Structured Classification and Coding Framework

To enable a structured and effective analysis of the body of knowledge contained within the sourced articles, a modified classification and coding framework utilizing numbers and letter codes to classify the articles was utilized (Table 1). This framework is adopted from Amui et al [25] who developed it based on other systematic review efforts [34–38].

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Classification and Coding Framework</caption><thead><tr><th>Classification</th><th>Description</th><th>Codes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Context</td><td>High-income countries</td><td>1A</td></tr><tr><td>Low-income countries</td><td>1B</td></tr><tr><td>Not Applicable</td><td>1C</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Focus</td><td>Smart Manufacturing (SM) as the main theme</td><td>2A</td></tr><tr><td>Industry 4.0 (I4.0) as the main theme</td><td>2B</td></tr><tr><td>Smart Factory (SF) as the main theme</td><td>2C</td></tr><tr><td>SM/I4.0/SF used interchangeably</td><td>2D</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Method</td><td>Qualitative</td><td>3A</td></tr><tr><td>Quantitative</td><td>3B</td></tr><tr><td>Theoretical</td><td>3C</td></tr><tr><td>Empirical</td><td>3D</td></tr><tr><td>Case studies/interviews</td><td>3E</td></tr><tr><td>Survey</td><td>3F</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Sector</td><td>Manufacturing</td><td>4A</td></tr><tr><td>Other Sectors</td><td>4B</td></tr><tr><td>Not Applicable</td><td>4C</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Dimensions</td><td>Awareness(Knowledge)</td><td>5A</td></tr><tr><td>Benefits</td><td>5B</td></tr><tr><td>Technologies</td><td>5C</td></tr><tr><td>Readiness/Adoption</td><td>5D</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Origin (Continents)</td><td>America</td><td>6A</td></tr><tr><td>Europe</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>Asia</td><td>6C</td></tr><tr><td>Oceania</td><td>6D</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>6E</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 3 Analysis and discussion of findings

The thirty selected research articles were coded according to Table 1, with the resultant coding results shown in Table 2 below.

<table><caption>Table 2. Results of the Codification Framework</caption><thead><tr><th>Authors</th><th>Context</th><th>Focus</th><th>Method</th><th>Sector</th><th>Dimensions</th><th>Origin (Continents)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#1 Mittal et al. (2018a)</td><td>1C</td><td>2A 2B 2C 2D</td><td>3C</td><td>4A</td><td>5D</td><td>5A 6A</td></tr><tr><td>#2 Ganzarain and Errasti (2016)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B 2C 2D</td><td>3D</td><td></td><td>4C 5D</td><td>5A 6B</td></tr><tr><td>#3 Mittal et al. (2018b)</td><td>1C</td><td>2A 2B 2C 2D</td><td>3C</td><td>3E 4A</td><td>5D 5C</td><td>6A</td></tr><tr><td>#4 Mittal et al. (2018c)</td><td>1C</td><td>2A 2B 2D</td><td>3C</td><td>3E 4A</td><td>5D 5C</td><td>6A</td></tr><tr><td>#5 Hamidi et al. (2018)</td><td>1B</td><td>2B 2C 2D</td><td>3B</td><td>3F</td><td>4C 5D 5C</td><td>5A 6C</td></tr><tr><td>#6 Wang et al. (2016)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B</td><td>3D</td><td>4A</td><td>5D</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#7 Moeuf et al. (2018)</td><td>1C</td><td>2B 2C 2D</td><td>3C</td><td></td><td>4C 5D 5C</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#8 Dassisti et al. (2018)</td><td>1C</td><td>2A 2B 2D</td><td></td><td>3E</td><td>4C 5D</td><td>5A 6B</td></tr><tr><td>#9 Andulkar et al. (2018)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B 2C 2D</td><td>3A 3B</td><td>3E 3F</td><td>4C 5D 5C</td><td>5B 5A 6B</td></tr><tr><td>#10 Hamzeh et al. (2018)</td><td>1A</td><td>2A 2B 2D</td><td></td><td>3F 4A</td><td>5D 5B 5A</td><td>6D</td></tr><tr><td>#11 El Hamdi et al. (2018)</td><td>1B</td><td>2A 2B 2D</td><td>3C</td><td>3F 4A</td><td>5D</td><td>5A 6E</td></tr><tr><td>#12 Wienbruch et al. (2018)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B</td><td>3C</td><td>3D</td><td>4A 5D</td><td>5A 6B</td></tr><tr><td>#13 Dassisti et al. (2017)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B</td><td></td><td>3E 4A</td><td>5D</td><td>5A 6B</td></tr><tr><td>#14 Bär et al. (2018)</td><td>1A</td><td>2A 2B 2C 2D</td><td>3A 3C</td><td>3E 4A</td><td>5D 5C 5B</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#15 Jones et al. (2018)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B 2C 2D</td><td></td><td>3E 4A</td><td>5D 5C</td><td>5A 6B</td></tr><tr><td>#16 Colombo et al. (2015)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B 2C 2D</td><td></td><td></td><td>4C 5D</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#17 Issa et al. (2017)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B</td><td>3D</td><td>3E 4A</td><td>5D 5C</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#18 Faller and Feldmüller (2015)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B</td><td>3D</td><td>4A</td><td>5D</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#19 Wank et al. (2016)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B</td><td>3D</td><td>3E 4A</td><td>4C 5D</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#20 Jäger et al. (2016)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B 2C 2D</td><td></td><td>3E 3F</td><td>4C 5D</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#21 Polat and Karakuş (2018)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B 2C 2D</td><td></td><td>3E 4A</td><td>5D</td><td>5A 6C</td></tr><tr><td>#22 Nowotarski and Paslawski (2017)</td><td>1C</td><td>2B 2C 2D</td><td>3C</td><td>4B</td><td>5D</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#23 Sevinç et al. (2018)</td><td>1C</td><td>2B</td><td>3C</td><td>3E 3F 4A</td><td>5D</td><td>6C</td></tr><tr><td>#24 Müller et al. (2018)</td><td>1A</td><td>2A 2B 2D</td><td>3A 3B</td><td>3E 4A</td><td>5D</td><td>5B 5A 6B</td></tr><tr><td>#25 Ludwig et al. (2018)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B</td><td></td><td>3E 4A</td><td>4C 5D</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#26 Kleindienst and Ramsauer (2015)</td><td>1C</td><td>2B</td><td>3C</td><td>3E 4A</td><td>5D</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#27 Müller et al. (2017)</td><td>1A</td><td>2A 2B 2D</td><td>3A</td><td>3E</td><td>4C 5D</td><td>5A 6B</td></tr><tr><td>#28 Sommer (2015)</td><td>1A</td><td>2B</td><td>3C</td><td>3E</td><td>4C 5D</td><td>5A 6B</td></tr><tr><td>#29 Modrak et al. (2018)</td><td>1C</td><td>2B</td><td>3C</td><td>3E</td><td>4C 5D 5C</td><td>6B</td></tr><tr><td>#30 Müller and Voigt (2018)</td><td>1C</td><td>2B</td><td>3B</td><td>3F</td><td>4C 5D 5C 5B</td><td>6B</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3.1 Context and Origin

The majority of the articles focused on high-income countries (1A) in comparison to low income countries (1B) as shown in Table 2. The majority of the research studies in relation to smart manufacturing (Table 2) originated from Europe (6B) conducted by German universities and research institutions. Only one study by a Moroccan university originated from the African (6E) continent [16]. See details in Appendix 2 Table 11 on http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19652.17285.

The findings suggest that there is a research gap in this regard, and therefore a research opportunity for smart manufacturing for SMMEs in low-income countries, specifically in the African continent. The resource constrained environments of low-income country contexts often results in completely new and contrasting technological innovations as has been shown in the mobile money sector in low-income countries [39].
## 3.2 What's in a name: Smart Manufacturing vs 4IR

In this study, no article used smart manufacturing (2A) and/or smart factory (2C) as the main theme on their own (Table 3). Both these terms were used interchangeably with Industry 4.0 as shown in Table 3. Industry 4.0 (2B) is also not used interchangeably in this study and seems to be the most preferred term (Table 3). This could be as a result of the majority of the researchers/studies emanating from Germany. The findings suggest that the manufacturing 4IR discourse has primarily been through the lens of Industry 4.0 concept applied in a non-contextual approach to country specific problems and strategic initiatives [16, 40]. However, due to definitional differences of these terms (smart manufacturing/industry 4.0/smart factory) [5], there is a research gap and a related opportunity to contextualize 4IR concepts such as smart manufacturing to country specific problems and strategic initiatives.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Usage of the 4IR Terms</caption><thead><tr><th>4IR Concept</th><th>Code</th><th>Used as a Main Theme Only</th><th>Used as Main Theme and Interchangeably</th><th>No. of Articles</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Smart Manufacturing (SM)</td><td>2A</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Industry 4.0 (I4.0)</td><td>2B</td><td>v</td><td>x</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Smart Factory (SF)</td><td>2C</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SM &amp; I4.0</td><td>2A + 2B</td><td>x</td><td>v</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>SM &amp; SF</td><td>2A + 2C</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I4.0 &amp; SF</td><td>2B + 2C</td><td>x</td><td>v</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>SM &amp; I4.0 &amp; SF</td><td>2A + 2B + 2C</td><td>x</td><td>v</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3.3 Research Methods

The majority of the articles utilized case studies/interviews (3E) as research methods (Table 2). The case studies/interviews were in most cases used as part of the mixed research methodology approach to support conceptual/theoretical research (3C) articles (Table 2). Further analysis on the types of research methods and how they were utilized in the reviewed articles is shown in Table 4. The findings illustrate the need to create new substantive research theories that can contextualize smart manufacturing research to relate better to context specific needs.

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Research Methods</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Research Methods</th><th colspan="4">Qualitative</th><th colspan="2">Case Studies/Interviews</th><th rowspan="2">No. of Articles</th></tr><tr><th>3A</th><th>3B</th><th>3C</th><th>3D</th><th>3E</th><th>3F</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Single Research Method</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed Research Method</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>13</td><td>6</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Qualitative</td><td>4</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Quantitative</td><td>x</td><td>4</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3.4 Economic Sector

While the majority of the articles (4A) focused on the manufacturing sector, a significant number of articles (4C) studied SMMEs in a generalized manner (Table 5). Although SMMEs share a number of similarities, they are heterogeneous in nature as they operate in different sectors [41]. The findings suggest that more sector specific research needs to be done with regards to SMMEs.

<table><caption>**Table 5.** Economic sector</caption><thead><tr><th>Economic Sector</th><th>Code</th><th>No. of Articles</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Manufacturing</td><td>4A</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Other sectors</td><td>4B</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Not applicable</td><td>4C</td><td>13</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.5 Dimensions

To answer the framed research questions posed in section 1 (introduction), the four dimensions (1) awareness (adequate knowledge), (2) benefits (relative advantage), (3) technologies and (4) readiness/adoption (awareness, relative advantage, complexity and compatibility) shown in Table 1, were analyzed in accordance with the codification results of Table 2.

### Smart Manufacturing: Awareness (adequate knowledge).

RQ1 sought to establish the state of awareness (knowledge) of SMMEs in relation to smart manufacturing. While the majority of the studies (16 articles) did not mention or discuss this dimension, those articles that did mention/discuss (14 articles) this dimension did not provide any substantive details in relation to the awareness dimension (Table 6). See more details with regard to further analysis in Appendix 2 Table 12 on http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19652.17285.

The findings indicate that there is little comprehensive research focusing on investigating SMME levels of awareness in relation to smart manufacturing. Given that the awareness stage has very critical and significant implications to smart manufacturing readiness/adoption based on the innovations theory [19, 22], there is a critical need for research to focus on the awareness of SMMEs in relation to the opportunities, challenges and demands of smart manufacturing.

<table><caption>**Table 6. Awareness**</caption><thead><tr><td>Dimension: Awareness</td><td>Code</td><td>No. of Articles</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SMMEs lack awareness of smart manufacturing</td><td>5A</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>SMMEs have adequate knowledge of smart manufacturing</td><td>5A</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Not discussed/mentioned</td><td>5A</td><td>16</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Smart Manufacturing (industry 4.0): Relative Advantage (Benefits).

RQ2 sought to identify the benefits (relative advantage) of smart manufacturing in relation to SMMEs. The majority of the research studies did not look into the relative advantage dimension to identify explicitly or implicitly any potential benefits of smart manufacturing for SMMEs (Table 7). Only 5 articles discussed and or identified the relative advantage of smart manufacturing (See details in Appendix 2 Table 13 on http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19652.17285).

The findings point to the need for research studies to focus on explicitly identifying the practical relative advantage of smart manufacturing for SMMEs based on concrete and comprehensive research.

<table><caption>**Table 7. Benefits (Relative Advantage)**</caption><thead><tr><td>Dimension: Benefits (Relative Advantage)</td><td>Code</td><td>No. of Articles</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Potential benefits for SMMEs explicitly identified</td><td>5B</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Not discussed/mentioned</td><td>5B</td><td>25</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Smart Manufacturing (industry 4.0): Technologies.

RQ3 sought to identify technologies that are seen as key to the concept of smart manufacturing in relation to SMMEs. The majority of the research studies identified and
discussed smart manufacturing technologies from a general applications context and not specific to SMMEs or how they relate and or can be applied in SMME context (Table 8). Only 10 articles identified technologies that are seen as key to the concept of smart manufacturing in relation to SMMEs (See details in Appendix 2 Table 14 on http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19652.17285).

The findings reveals a research gap in identifying specific smart manufacturing technologies that are relevant to SMMEs from a sector or industry perspective. This research gap leaves SMMEs exposed and vulnerable to smart manufacturing anecdotes and sales pitches. The availability of empirically proven research on smart manufacturing technologies per sector and or industry would assist SMMEs which usually do not have the resources to do feasibility studies.

<table><caption>**Table 8. Technologies**</caption><thead><tr><td>Dimension: Technologies (key to SMMEs)</td><td>Code</td><td>No. of Articles</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Smart manufacturing technologies for SMMEs identified/discussed</td><td>5C</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Not discussed/mentioned</td><td>5C</td><td>20</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Smart Manufacturing (industry 4.0): Readiness/Adoption.**

RQ4 sought to understand the state of smart manufacturing readiness and adoption by SMMEs based on the innovations theory [19, 22]. Readiness and adoption of smart manufacturing by SMMEs is contingent on four key dimensions (1) awareness (adequate knowledge), (2) relative advantage (benefits), (3) complexity and (4) compatibility [19, 22]. Only a few research articles looked into the issue of awareness (Table 6), relative advantage (Table 7) and complexity as shown in Table 9, while 90% of the research articles indicates that smart manufacturing is currently incompatible with SMME characteristics due to lack of expertise, skills and resources (Table 9). See detailed analysis of complexity and compatibility in Appendix 2 Table 15 on http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19652.17285.

The findings reveal that, research gaps in relation to understanding the impact of awareness, relative advantage and complexity needs to be addressed to be able to assess the state of smart manufacturing readiness and adoption by SMMEs. The findings, further reveal that compatibility seems to be emerging as one of the major factors negatively affecting smart manufacturing readiness/adoption for SMMEs. This situation may have far reaching implications in the context of low-skilled and resource constrained low-income countries.

<table><caption>**Table 9. Adoption/Readiness**</caption><thead><tr><td>Dimension: Adoption/Readiness</td><td>No. of Articles</td><td>Percentage (total articles)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SMMEs have adequate knowledge of smart manufacturing</td><td>4</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Potential benefits for SMMEs explicitly identified</td><td>5</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Smart Manufacturing is complex for SMMEs to understand</td><td>11</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Smart manufacturing is incompatible with SMME characteristics</td><td>27</td><td>90</td></tr></tbody></table>

**4 Conclusion, Limitations and Future Work**

The primary objective of this work was to understand the level of SMME readiness/adoption for smart manufacturing and how this has been researched from the per-
spective of digital technologies innovation guided by four research questions (introduc-
tion section). Firstly, the findings suggest that smart manufacturing research on
SMMEs is limited in low-income countries and also not contextualized to context spe-
cific demands such as sector and or industry specific challenges and preconditions.
These includes smart manufacturing technology applications and how they relate or can
be applied in SMME context. Secondly, the findings suggest that the issues of SMME
awareness, relative advantage and complexity of smart manufacturing DT innovation
have received very little research attention. This is critical for readiness/adoption in
relation to technology-following SMMEs [20]. Lastly, SMME characteristics (lack of
skills, expertise and resources) are incompatible with smart manufacturing. This ren-
ders technology-following SMMEs not ready for the adoption of smart manufacturing.

Future context specific research investigating smart manufacturing in settings such as resource constraint low-income countries, non-technology based sectors/industries such as the manufacturing and technology-following SMMEs is recommended. More research to evaluate the impact of SMME awareness, relative advantage, complexity and incompatibility of smart manufacturing for former non-technology (but now technology-following) SMMEs should also be considered in future studies.

The systematic review is limited in its time horizon and its emphasis on low-income/
high-income context. Further research is needed that uses other regional aspects.

References

1. Kang, H.S., Lee, J.Y., Choi, S., Kim, H., Park, J.H., Son, J.Y., Kim, B.H., Noh, S. Do: Smart manufacturing: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. - Green Technol. 3, 111–128 (2016). doi:10.1007/s40684-016-0015-5

2. Riddick, F., Wallace, E., Davis, J.: Variability in Food Production. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 121, 17–32 (2016). doi:10.6028/jres.121.002

3. Issa, A., Hatboglu, B., Bildstein, A., Bauernhansl, T.: Industry 4.0 roadmap: Framework for digital transformation based on the concepts of capability maturity and alignment. Procedia CIRP. 72, 973–978 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.151

4. Zhong, R.Y., Xu, X., Klotz, E., Newman, S.T.: Intelligent Manufacturing in the Context of Industry 4.0: A Review. Engineering. 3, 616–630 (2017). doi:10.1016/J.ENG.2017.05.015

5. Mittal, S., Khan, M.A., Romero, D., Wuest, T.: A critical review of smart manufacturing & Industry 4.0 maturity models: Implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). J. Manuf. Syst. 49, 194–214 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.10.005

6. Thoben, K.-D., Wiesner, S., Wuest, T.: "Industrie 4.0" and Smart Manufacturing – A Review of Research Issues and Application Examples. International J. Autom. Technol. 11, 4–19 (2017). doi:10.20965/ijat.2017.p0004

7. Mittal, S., Khan, M.A., Wuest, T.: Smart manufacturing: Characteristics and technologies. IFIP Adv. Inf. Commun. Technol. 492, 539–548 (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54660-5_48

8. Davis, J., Edgar, T., Porter, J., Bernaden, J., Sarli, M.: Smart manufacturing,
manufacturing intelligence and demand-dynamic performance. Comput. Chem. Eng. 47, 145-156 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.06.037

9. Jun, C., Yeon, J., Yoon, J., Hyun, B.: Applications 'Integration and Operation Platform to Support Smart Manufacturing by Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. Procedia Manuf. 11, 1950-1957 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.341

10. Müller, J.M., Voigt, K.A.I.I.: Industry 4.0 - Integration Strategies for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. IAMOT 2017 Conf. Proc. (2017)

11. Safar, L., Sopko, J., Bednar, S., Poklemba, R.: Concept of SME Business Model for Industry 4.0 Environment. TEM J. 7, 626-637 (2018). doi:10.18421/TEM73-20

12. Luff, P.: The 4th Industrial Revolution and SMEs in Malaysia and Japan: Some Economic, Social and Ethical Considerations. 25, 25-48 (2017)

13. Mittal, S., Romero, D., Wuest, T.: Towards a Smart Manufacturing Maturity Model for SMEs (SM3E). 1, (2018)

14. Mittal, S., Romero, D., Wuest, T.: Towards a Smart Manufacturing Toolkit for SMEs. 1, 155-163 (2018). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99707-0_20

15. Moeuf, A., Pellerin, R., Lamouri, S., Tamayo-giraldo, S., Moeuf, A., Pellerin, R., Lamouri, S., Tamayo-, S.: The industrial management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0. Int. J. Prod. Res. 7543, 0 (2018). doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1372647

16. Hamdi, S.E.L.: Disposition of Moroccan SME Manufacturers to Industry 4.0 with the implementation of ERP as a first step. 2018 Sixth Int. Conf. Enterp. Syst. 116-122 (2018). doi:10.1109/ES.2018.00025

17. Piotr Nowotarski, Jerzy Paslawski: Industry 4.0 Concept Introduction into Construction SMEs. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (2017)

18. Sommer, L.: Industrial Revolution - Industry 4.0: Are German Manufacturing SMEs the First Victims of this Revolution? J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 8, 1512-1532 (2015)

19. Nooteboom, B.: Innovation and Diffusion in Small Firms: Theory and Evidence. Small Bus. Econ. 6, 327-347 (1994). doi:10.1007/bf01065137

20. Nooteboom, B., Coehoorn, C., Van Der Zwaan, A.: The Purpose and Effectiveness of Technology Transfer to Small Businesses by Government-sponsored Innovation Centres. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 4, 149-166 (1992). doi:10.1080/09537329208524089

21. Tornatzky, L., Klein, K.: Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 29, 28-43 (1982). doi:10.1109/TEM.1982.6447463

22. Rogers, E.M.: Difusion of innovations. New York Free Press. (1983)

23. Gumbi, L.N., Mnkandla, E.: Investigating South African Vendors' Cloud Computing Value Proposition to Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises: A Case of the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality. African J. Inf. Syst. 7, 1936-282 (2015)

24. Lage Junior, M., Godinho Filho, M.: Variations of the kanban system: Literature review and classification, (2010)

25. Amui, L.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Kannan, D.: Sustainability as a dynamic organizational capability: a systematic review and a future agenda toward a sustainable transition. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 308-322 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.103
26. Thoben, K.-D., Wiesner, S., Wuest, T.: "Industrie 4.0" and Smart Manufacturing – A Review of Research Issues and Application Examples. Int. J. Autom. Technol. 11, 4–16 (2017). doi:10.20965/ijat.2017.p0004

27. Yang, H., Tate, M., Mary Tate, V.: A Descriptive Literature Review and Classification of Cloud Computing Research. 31, 35–60 (2012)

28. Fahim El-Gazzar, R.: IFIP AICT 429 - A Literature Review on Cloud Computing Adoption Issues in Enterprises. 214–242 (2014)

29. Osman Adam, I., Musah, A.: Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the Cloud in Developing Countries: A Synthesis of the Literature and Future Research Directions. J. Manag. Sustain. 5, (2015). doi:10.5539/jms.v5n1p115

30. Asatiani, A.: Why Cloud? -A Review of Cloud Adoption Determinants in Organizations. In: Twenty-Thrid ECIS 2015. pp. 1–17 (2015)

31. Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S., Auer, S.: A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Gov. Inf. Q. 32, 399–418 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006

32. Jacsó, P.: The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databases. Online Inf. Rev. 32, 266–283 (2008). doi:10.1108/14684520810879872

33. Shah, S.R.U., Mahmood, K.: Review of Google scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus search results: The case of inclusive education research. Libr. Philos. Pract. 1544 (2017)

34. Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Davarzani, H.: Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis, (2015)

35. Junior, M.L., Filho, M.G.: Production planning and control for remanufacturing: literature review and analysis. Prod. Plan. Control. 23, 419–435 (2012). doi:10.1080/09537287.2011.561815

36. Jabbour, C.J.C.: Environmental training in organisations: From a literature review to a framework for future research. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74, 144–155 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.017

37. Jabbour, C.J.C., Jugend, D., De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Gunasekaran, A., Latan, H.: Green product development and performance of Brazilian firms: Measuring the role of human and technical aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 442–451 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.036

38. Mariano, E.B., Sobreiro, V.A., Rebelatto, D.A. do N.: Human development and data envelopment analysis: A structured literature review. Omega. 54, 33–49 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.01.002

39. Kim, M., Zoo, H., Lee, H., Kang, J.: Mobile, Financial Inclusion and Development: A Critical Review of Academic Literature. GlobDev. (2017)

40. Hamidi, S.R., Aziz, A.A., Shuhidan, S.M., Aziz, A., Mokhsin, M.: SMEs Maturity Model Assessment of IR4.0 Digital Transformation. In: International Conference on Kansei Engineering & Emotion Research. pp. 721–732 (2018)

41. Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S., Li, F.: Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north east of England. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 26, 250–275 (2013). doi:10.1108/17410391311325225