## 5 Results
### Results of fsQCA  
To identify the causal combinations of factors contributing to implementation success, fsQCA 3.0 software was employed, involving data calibration, necessary condition analysis, and sufficient condition analysis. For data calibration, transformation from the five-point Likert scale to values ranging from 0 to 1 was necessary. Initially, the score for each construct was calculated by averaging its items. Subsequently, the 95%, 50%, and 5% percentiles served as breaking points (full membership: 95%; crossover anchor: 50%; full non-membership: 5%) to calibrate the scores [118]. Regarding necessary condition analysis, it is typically conducted prior to sufficient condition analysis, despite the latter being the core of fsQCA [119]. A condition is deemed necessary if the consistency score exceeds 0.9 [120]. However, the consistency scores in Table 9 indicate that none of the conditions are necessary for implementation success or failure. In the sufficient condition analysis, the software generated all possible configurations (\(2^{6}=64\)) to form atruth table. Subsequently, the truth table underwent filtration based on frequency and consistency criteria. Given that our sample size surpasses 150, the frequency threshold was set at three [79; 118]. Additionally, the raw consistency threshold and PRI consistency threshold were established at 0.8 and 0.7, respectively [118]. As a result, 167 cases were encompassed within configurations that exceeded the 80% consistency threshold. Following the construction of the truth table, we proceeded with the standard analysis, the results of which are detailed in Table 10.  
Table 10 adheres to the convention of presenting both parsimonious and intermediate solutions [120]. The inclusion of a big black circle signifies the presence of a core condition, present in both intermediate and parsimonious solutions, while a small black circle denotes the presence of a peripheral condition, present only in the intermediate solution. Conversely, big and small crossed circles represent the absence of core and peripheral conditions, respectively. As depicted in Table 10, three core configurations are identified as leading to implementation success. The overall solution consistency stands at 0.924, with an overall solution coverage of 0.640, surpassing the recommended thresholds [118]. Configuration 1 is labeled as top-management-backed, self-sufficient firms. These firms exhibit high-level technology competence, boasting skilled and knowledgeable employees along with robust infrastructure. Additionally, their top management actively supports the implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies. With both top management support and technology competence, these firms achieve implementation success. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Implementation Success**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Negation of Implementation Success**} \\ \hline
**Condition** & **Consistency** & **Coverage** & **Consistency** & **Coverage** \\ \hline Complex & 0.645 & 0.649 & 0.708 & 0.612 \\ \(\sim\)Complex & 0.615 & 0.710 & 0.594 & 0.590 \\ Compatibility & 0.745 & 0.777 & 0.582 & 0.522 \\ \(\sim\)Compatibility & 0.541 & 0.601 & 0.752 & 0.717 \\ TMS & 0.742 & 0.743 & 0.573 & 0.493 \\ \(\sim\)TMS & 0.494 & 0.574 & 0.702 & 0.700 \\ Tech competence & 0.725 & 0.826 & 0.510 & 0.500 \\ \(\sim\)Tech competence & 0.561 & 0.571 & 0.823 & 0.720 \\ Supplier support & 0.732 & 0.832 & 0.499 & 0.487 \\ \(\sim\)Supplier support & 0.549 & 0.560 & 0.828 & 0.727 \\ Pilot & 0.831 & 0.769 & 0.600 & 0.477 \\ \(\sim\)Pilot & 0.435 & 0.559 & 0.709 & 0.783 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Analysis of necessary conditions. Configuration 2 is denoted as top-management-backed, supplier-powered firms. While these firms may not possess inherent technological competence, their top management provides crucial support for the implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies.