International Journal of Production Research, 2019

Vol. 57, No. 7, 2009–2033, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1518610

Understanding the Blockchain technology adoption in supply chains-Indian context

Sachin Kamblea , Angappa Gunasekaranb∗ and Himanshu Arhac
a Operations and Supply Chain Management, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India; b School of Business and
Public Administration, California State University, Bakersfield, USA; c PGDIE-46, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai,
India
(Received 9 June 2018; accepted 23 August 2018)

Blockchain technology (BT) is expected to bring a revolutionary paradigm shift in the manner the transactions are carried
in the supply chains. BT provides better visibility and transparency by removing the disadvantages of trust related issues
in a supply chain. In this paper, we advance the literature on BT and its adoption in the supply chain by developing, and
statistically validating a model for understanding the user perceptions on BT adoption. The model is based on the integration
of three adoption theories- technology acceptance model (TAM), technology readiness index (TRI) and the theory of planned
behaviour (TPB). Based on a survey of 181 supply chain practitioners in India the proposed model was tested using structural
equation modelling. The study found that the TRI constructs- Insecurity and discomfort have an insignificant effect on the
perceived ease of use and usefulness. Perceived usefulness, attitude, and perceived behavioural control affect the behavioural
intention. Subjective norm has a negligible impact on behavioural intention. This is one of the preliminary studies on BT
adoption in supply chain and the findings imply that the supply chain practitioners perceive BT adoption free of efforts and
would help them to derive maximum benefits for improving the supply chain effectiveness.
Keywords: Blockchain technology; technology management; technology acceptance model (TAM); theory of planned
behaviour (TPB); technology readiness index (TRI); supply chain management

1. Introduction
Technology-driven disruptions have played a critical role in the past in improving the efficiency of business and supply
chains are not an exception to it (Craighead et al. 2017). The supply chain is one of the most crucial components for
achieving efficiency and responsiveness. Supply chains can leverage the benefits of modern technologies to fetch com-
petitive advantage for the firms (Gunasekaran, Lai, and Edwin Cheng 2008). With the increasing scale of the businesses,
diversifying product portfolio, and a number of geographic locations to be served, the supply chains have become more
complex. Manufacturers are finding it challenging to offer highly customised products to compete in niche markets, while
the retails are restraining placement of large orders as an outcome of the implementation of lean retailing practices. As a
result predicting demands, planning production and synchronising orders have become a significant challenge in the unsta-
ble environment (Pereira 2009). To mitigate such problems, digitalisation of supply chain has been a critical development
in the last couple of decades moving towards a knowledge-based economy where a shift from traditional manufacturing
to an era of global, intelligent and sustainable manufacturing is observed (Bi 2011; Ranganathan, Teo, and Dhaliwal 2011;
Long et al. 2017; Michael 2017). The manufacturing companies are looking for innovative information technology support
to improve their performance with effective supply chain collaboration and coordination (Farooq and O’Brien 2012).
It has been observed in the past that one company owned or had significant control over the business activities in
the chain, however, the integrated business process is not enough in the modern day, synchronised operations of all the
supply chain partners using inter-organizational information systems is a must (Williamson, Harrison, and Jordan 2004).
Blockchain technology (BT) is one such technology that has emerged in the recent times that provides better visibility and
transparency of transactions in supply chains (Pilkington 2016). BT is a decentralised ledger, which stores transaction data
in blocks. These blocks are added together in chronological order to form an incorruptible chain, and this chain is shared
and distributed to all the participating entities (Underwood 2016). Such architecture brings benefits of better traceability and
tamper-proof nature and has the potential to resolve trust issues in a typical supply chain (Kshetri 2018).

*Corresponding author. Email: agunasekaran@csub.edu

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2010 S. Kamble et al.

Though in its nascent stage, BT is supported by many advantages compared to traditional supply chains that can bring
a revolutionary paradigm shift in the manner the transactions are carried (Tapscott and Tapscott 2017). It is estimated that
the various features offered by BT could bring in an improvement in one-third of the most common supply chain pro-
cesses (Camerinelli 2016). However, BT also has few challenges to overcome as the organisations are lacking an organised
ecosystem and platforms for scaling up the application of blockchain. There are issues related to technical know-how,
data governance and privacy-related concerns which are still unaddressed. Many firms are skeptical about the high costs
of blockchain implementation. Further, the efficacy and benefits in sectors other than finance are also unproven (Koteska,
Karafiloski, and Mishev 2017). The business managers need to understand the potential impact and threat of blockchain
applications to gain and maintain a competitive advantage. There exists an opportunity to create numerous sharing applica-
tions, e.g. peer-to-peer automatic payment mechanisms, foreign exchange platforms, digital rights management and cultural
heritage (Huckle et al. 2016). Due to the associated risks in using BT, it is found that the supply chain and logistics compa-
nies are skeptical of using this technology as compared to other industries (Sadouskaya 2017). Mthethwa (2016) reports that
some people still do not understand the technology and are hesitant to use blockchain leading to the slow adoption of this
technology. The existing BT literature is mostly conceptual expositions, and empirical evidence on adopting the technology
is limited (Ying, Jia, and Du 2018). Therefore, it is of utmost importance to analyze the factors which affect the acceptance
of BT so that it helps to expedite the process of its adoption (Francisco and Swanson 2018).
There is a vast pool of IT adoption models (eg. Davis 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Ajzen 1991; Rogers
1995; Parasuraman 2000; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003) being applied to study the adoption behaviour
of end customers across various IT products and services. These studies include ERP (Amoako-Gyampah and Salam 2004;
Calisir et al. 2009; Sternad and Bobek 2013), bitcoin (Kumpajaya and Dhewanto 2015; Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016),
mobile banking (Martins, Oliveira, and Popovič 2014; Pattansheti et al. 2016), internet of things (Gao and Bai 2014), RFID
(Lee 2009), virtual reality (Bertrand and Bouchard 2008; Shih, Chen, and Chen 2012), Robots (Bröhl et al. 2016) and others.
A review of the recent adoption models being applied in the IT domain reveals that the focus has been on combining various
theoretical models or constructs influencing the adoption behaviour of the customers or the end users. Such integration of
theoretical models is supported in the literature for having a more comprehensive understanding of the customers intent to
adopt IT applications (Pavlou and Fygenson 2006; Williams et al. 2009; Pattansheti et al. 2016).
A review of the literature on BT reveals that most of the studies are focused on presenting the benefits and challenges of
implementing BT. There has been little focus on studying the adoption of BT applications. Although there are few studies
available on Bitcoin adoption (Kumpajaya and Dhewanto 2015; Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016) the present study will be
one of the preliminary studies to examine the adoption of BT in supply chains. This study aims to provide a comprehensive
understanding of the various decision-making factors that influence the behavioural intention of adopting BT in supply
chains.
The present study aims to address the research gap by understanding the BT adoption process in supply chains. The
findings of the survey will help the practitioners and the BT marketers to understand the various factors that are influencing
the adoption process and devise a sound implementation plan. Based on a survey of 181 supply chain practitioners the study
examines the BT adoption in supply chains through the development of a research model that integrates the constructs of
technology readiness index (TRI), technology acceptance model (TAM) and theory of planned behaviour (TPB).
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: In section 2 we present the conceptual background of the study.
Section 3 presents the research model and hypotheses. In section 4 we present the research methodology adopted for the
study. Results are presented in section 5 followed by discussions in section 6. Section 7 presents the conclusions and
limitation of the study.

2. Theoretical background
2.1. Blockchain
The blockchain is a peer to peer transaction platform which doesn’t need any third-party intermediary. From business
purpose, different entities involved in the transaction work as nodes and the process is being validated through cryptography
(Crosby et al. 2016). Records of these transactions are stored as shared and decentralised ledger over all participating entities.
Blockchain in itself can be termed as meta-technology because it is the result of the integration of several other technologies
such as software development, cryptographic technology, database technology, etc. (Mougayar 2016).
Traditionally, the double entry accounting system is in existence since the fifteen century. Blockchain as technology
removes the disadvantages of trust related issues associated with this system and thus reduces the friction in transaction
process (Davidson, De Filippi, and Potts 2016). The blockchain is sometimes termed as next digital revolution keeping its
benefits in mind. It is widely compared to the evolution of the internet in the early 90s (Tapscott and Tapscott, 2017). It is
 International Journal of Production Research 2011

argued that blockchain will bring a shift from ‘Internet of Information’ to ‘Internet of Values’ (Froystad and Holm 2016).
Blockchain will make transactions more instantaneous and cheaper (Peters and Panayi 2016).

2.2. Blockchain in Supply Chain

Considering the complex nature of modern era supply chains, BT is expected to speed up the processes and make it all the
way more reliable (Kim and Laskowski 2016). In a typical supply chain, some facilities, such as vendor, plant, distribution
centre, etc., are there, through which, material, cash, and information flow. Some transactions take place at these interfaces
in every supply chain. For example, between vendor and plant, between plant and distribution centre. Trust-related issues
are inevitable due to the existence of finance-related redundancies in record keeping (Ammous 2016). Blockchain can work
as a sole source of information and will help to integrate all functions of the supply chain (Korpela, Hallikas, and Dahlberg
2017). A lot of value enabling tasks like recording, tracking and sharing of information can become faster, and scalability
can be achieved without delay by use of blockchain. Through a blockchain enabled supply chain the organisations can
achieve a real-time digital ledger of transactions and movements for all stakeholders in their supply chain network.
In a traditional supply chain, the total number of purchases driven by an organisation is very difficult as the purchases
are driven across the organisation’s subsidiaries, business partners and everyone else in the supply chain. However, with the
BT in SCM, it will be effortless to keep track of volume regardless of who initiated the purchase activity (Joshi 2017). This
information as an outcome of a centralised digital ledger will help the organisations to negotiate with the suppliers better
and avail quantity discounts.
BT helps the organisations to arrive at accurate demand forecasts, manage resources effectively and reduce inventory
carrying costs because of its ability to create records of activities. This helps the supply chains in risk mitigations at lower
costs compared to the traditional supply chains where high stocks of inventory, excess capacity, and third-party backup
sources are developed in anticipation of disruptions (Ivanov, Dolgui, and Sokolov 2018). BT applications help to enhance
the scale and scope of the tracing and tracking systems (Hofmann, Strewe, and Bosia 2018). The primary purpose for the
use of BT in supply chains is to improve the supply chain visibility and transparency based on record keeping functionalities
(Ivanov, Dolgui, and Sokolov 2018). However, this depends on the big data analytics capability of the organisations that
comprise the ability of the organisations to capture accurate data, data storage, data analysis and decision making in real-
time.

2.2.1. BT in the procurement domain of SCM

Blockchain has the potential to bring digital trust to the procurement cycle. The feature of transparency offered by blockchain
is most useful here. In traditional supply chains, which are guided by the analog contracts, there is a payment gap between
the actual delivery of the product, the generation of the invoice and final payment settlement. The BT application of smart
contracts will help the organisations to reduce or end this delayed and costly payment gaps by integrating delivery and
payment in digital contracts that flow across enterprises and integrate with logistics partners and banks. The integration will
also result in reducing the working capital requirements and simplify finance operations leading to the sustainability of the
supply chain. The smart contract, which acts as a rule book for these transactions can be used. Payment related decisions
can be assisted by such smart agreements (Sreehari et al. 2017). Any good’s origin can be traced back to its root. Better
purchase order management, real-time settlement, efficient inquiry management all add to the advantages mentioned above
(DeCovny 2015). For example, ADEPT (Autonomous Decentralized Peer-to-Peer Telemetry, backed up by blockchain)
developed by Samsung and IBM can be used to provide a secure, low-cost way to initiate the smart contract-based order to
procure the product and later pay accordingly (Cohn et al. 2017).

2.2.2. BT in manufacturing domain of SCM

A lot of data is generated in the manufacturing cycle. Right from the step of verification of conflict-free raw material
to use process improvement tools such as lean and six sigma. The potential of blockchain application lies in validating
the manufacturing parameters which is considered to be a cumbersome activity. Smart contracts, which can verify their
conditions, provided with executive power, can yield massive scale of automation to the plants (Shanley 2017). Apart from
traditional manufacturing, recent technological disruptions such as Industry 4.0 and use of robotics in conjunction with
rule-based intelligence will be even more focused on big data analytics (Jeschke et al. 2017). Leveraging the scale of this
data can be streamlined by the use of blockchain. Quality documentation can also be standardised using blockchain and can
be distributed to all participating node to aid better decision making (Apte and Petrovsky 2016). Blockchain can be useful
in additive manufacturing as well, as it can make it much more documentable and attributable from a design point of view
2012 S. Kamble et al.

(Holland, Nigischer, and Stjepandic 2017). There are reports about some companies have started with the integration of
BT concept into their manufacturing practices (Xu, Xu, and Li 2018). Wipro’s dedicated blockchain solutions are aimed
towards manufacturing businesses and can be tailored to the customers’ individual needs. Using a unique ID, Wipro intends
to validate manufacturing processes by eliminating the possibility of counterfeit items entering the supply chain. The items
would be scanned at every point of the manufacturing process. Such a transparent system would also provide benefits for
quality management and verification (Wipro 2017).

2.2.3. BT in logistics and distribution domain of SCM

Potential benefits of improved transparency and better tracking are reflected most in the delivery cycle of any supply chain.
The more widely the spread of the supply chains, more are the possibilities of discrepancies regarding information flow, and
the quality of product delivered. This directly affects the customer satisfaction. In ever-increasing competition in the market,
none of the organisation want to lose on this front. Blockchain can be very useful in such circumstances (Haoyan et al. 2017).
The resources deployed in the distribution domain such as vehicles, which can easily be integrated with technologies such
as GPS, can work as an input source of information for blockchain. Once such integration has been achieved, the permanent
nature of blockchain will ensure that data cannot be forged, and it can be availed at any time in future for analytics purpose
also (Tian 2016). This combination further improves the operational efficiency of the outbound supply chain.
A brief review of recent studies on the application of BT in SCM is presented in Table 1.
The above literature reveals that blockchain is creating a lot of buzz in the industry and has the potential to emerge as
Industry 5.0. The way blockchain is creating disruptions for financial sectors; it is just a matter of time that supply chains
will also start deriving benefit out of it.
A benchmark survey was conducted on supply chain practitioners by ‘Chain-Business Insights’ on the use of blockchain
in supply chains. The main findings of the study reported by Austin (2017) are as follows;
• 40.5% of respondents had a low level of awareness on BT, and they are in the initial phase of a learning curve.
• 80% of the respondents felt that they will use blockchain mostly for tracking the product in their supply chain.
• 45.9% of them thought that improving the supply chain visibility is the primary advantage of the blockchain.
• 42.5% of the respondents felt that their company is planning to implement blockchain within the next year.
• 27.5% of the respondents felt that lack of understanding is the most prominent obstacle towards adopting
blockchain.
Some organisations have already begun pilot projects on implementing BT in their supply chains and are planning to
scale it up. There is a need to analyze the adoption factors with more profound insights so that the adoption process is
understood. The literature lacks research on BT adoption models. In this study, we focus on bridging this gap by developing
and validating a BT adoption model. In the following section, we introduce the theoretic foundations that support the
conceptualisation of our study model.

2.3. Technology Adoption Models

Technological advancements always play a vital role in the field of business. Technological progress fosters dissemination
of knowledge as well. But, until and unless, it is accepted or used, technology is of little use (Oye, Iahad, and Rahim
2012). While the term adoption is applied at the individual level, diffusion can be thought of as adoption by the masses.
Technology adoption will lead to diffusion (Sharma and Mishra 2014). Thus, understanding technology adoption is of utmost
importance. Carr (1999) has defined technology adoption as the ‘stage of selecting a technology for use by an individual or
an organisation.’ Technology adoption can further be defined as willingness within a group of users to employ technology
for their benefit (Samaradiwakara and Gunawardena 2014). Several studies have revealed that technology adoption is not
related to the aspects of technology alone but has evolved as a much more complicated process involving dimensions of
user attitude and personality (Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu 2012), social influence (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), trust (Gefen,
Karahanna, and Straub 2003) and numerous facilitating conditions (Thompson, Higgins, and Howell 1991).

2.3.1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

The TAM proposed by Davis (1985) examines the technology adoption process through the perceptions of the end users on
its utility and ease of use. TAM considered variables like perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Using TAM, Davis
(1993) posited out that the user’s attitude toward it determines adoption of a particular technology and the development of
attitude is contributed by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The predictive power of TAM is one of its
 International Journal of Production Research 2013

Table 1. Review of literature on the use of BT in the supply chain management.

Author The objective of the study Findings
Kshetri (2018) To study the role of blockchain Various SCM objectives such as cost, quality, speed, dependability, risk
in meeting critical SCM reduction, sustainability, and flexibility were considered. Using an innovation
objectives diffusion theory, the study found that industries such as oil trading with
many supplier layers will emerge as the front-runner in blockchain adoption.
Using the case of farmers, the study predicted that one entity’s approval of
blockchain would exert normative pressure on other entities of the supply
chain.
Nakasumi To propose a blockchain based The paper proposes a blockchain based solution to address the problems of
(2017) solution for addressing the the traditional supply chain such as double marginalisation and information
issues of information sharing asymmetry etc. The study recommends that with the implementation of BT
and double marginalisation. the issues of double marginalisation and information asymmetry can be
addressed.
Korpela, To study how digital supply The papers discuss the digitalisation of supply chains supported by BT. Using a
Hallikas, and chain transformation be framework, the study identifies gaps between business readiness and current
Dahlberg achieved with blockchain functionalities from an integration point of view. Further, the study propose
(2017) integration. that these gaps can be bridged by using blockchain. A cost-effective and
flexible integration model based on the cloud is proposed. The study identifies
ledger, smart contracts and time stamps as the most valuable functionalities
of the blockchain.
Chen et al. To develop a blockchain The study analyzes the different causes of lack of trust in supply chain quality
(2017) based supply chain quality management. The study proposes a theoretical framework for SCQM system
management (SCQM) based on the blockchain. The system architecture of proposed structure
framework includes four layers- IoT layer, data layer, contract layer and business layer.
The proposed model is expected to serve as digital identity and help in
real-time quality monitoring, logistics planning, and contract automation.
Omran et al. Development of a Blockchain- The study proposes a conceptual framework for blockchain driven supply chain
(2017) driven supply chain finance finance solution. Efficiency, transparency, and autonomy were identified as
framework the key value drivers of supply chains. The blockchain is proposed as the
most prominent solution to achieve the above characteristics. A BT based on
reverse factoring and dynamic discounting are introduced which will help in
better decision making.
Tian (2017) To develop a supply chain This paper proposes a food supply chain traceability system for real-time food
traceability system for food tracing based on HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points),
safety. blockchain and Internet of things. The proposed method provides the benefits
of tracking and identifying fake products. It is claimed that the blockchain
can revolutionize food chain.
Wu et al. (2017) Development of a distributed The paper propose an online shipment tracking framework based on a privately
ledger system for supply chain distributed ledger and a single block chain public ledger. The challenge
physical distribution visibility of independent validation of shipment tracking information in traditional
tracking systems is addressed with this unique solution based on combining
private and public ledger.
Toyoda et al. To develop blockchain- The study proposes a blockchain based product ownership management system
(2017) based product ownership of RFID attached products for anti-counterfeits.
management system for
anti-counterfeits in the post
supply chain.
Apte and To study the role of BT in The paper discusses the distributed public consensus system that is capable of
Petrovsky excipient supply chain maintaining permanent transaction records on the web, protecting data from
(2016) management. falsification or fabrication.
Kim and To study the effect of ontology- This paper discusses the impact of blockchain on supply chain provenance along
Laskowski driven blockchain design for with its use in ontological engineering. The study highlights the potential
(2016) supply chain provenance contribution and the proof of concept for modelling approach based on formal
and informal ontologies.
Abeyratne and To highlight the various This paper discusses the numerous benefits of blockchain in different application
Monafared benefits of blockchain ready areas of manufacturing supply chain using an example of cardboard boxes.
(2016) manufacturing supply chain The study claims that IoT and blockchain will profoundly influence
using distributed ledger next-generation manufacturing.
2014 S. Kamble et al.

fundamental strength. TAM has been empirically verified as an instrument for predicting technology use (Szajna 1996;
Howell 2016; Larasati and Santosa 2017; Xie et al. 2017; Verma and Sinha 2018) and emerged as the dominant model in
the literature (Davis 1993; Szajna 1994; Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Davis 2000).

2.3.2. Theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

Proposed by Ajzen (1985) TPB is an extension of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). The TRA
action was based on an integration of various other theories of attitude such as learning theories, expectancy-value theories,
consistency theories and attribution theory. The TRA theory proposes that people are more likely to develop intentions
(motivations) if they have a positive attitude towards a subject and their peers (significant others expect them to perform
this behaviour. The TPB addresses situations where the individuals do not have complete control over their behaviour. The
various constructs included in TPA are behavioural attitudes, subjective norms, intention to use and actual use. Further TPB
also comprises a perceived construct named perceived behaviour control. Under this organisation, the control aspect of the
observation is introduced into the model making the TPB more functional in its application. It is observed that TPB is
widely used to model the acceptance of a variety of new information technology products and also to predict levels of usage
(Pattansheti et al. 2016; Issa and Hamm 2017; Xie et al. 2017; Ma et al. 2018).

2.3.3. Technology readiness index (TRI)

TRI refers to people’s propensity to embrace and use new technologies for accomplishing goals. Parasuraman (2000) defines
TRI as the construct ‘that can be viewed as an overall state of mind resulting from a gestalt of mental enablers and inhibitors
that collectively determine a person’s predisposition to use new technologies.’ TRI measure people’s general technology
beliefs and consists of four sub-dimensions: optimism, innovativeness, discomfort, and insecurity. Optimism can be consid-
ered as an indicator of a positive view of technology and works as a belief that it can bring efficiency, better control, and
flexibility. Innovativeness refers to user’s inclinations towards being a pioneer in the technology field. Discomfort depicts
the feeling of lack of control and a sense of overwhelming while using the technology. Lastly, insecurity relates to worries
or distrust for the technology and suspicion towards its capability. While Optimism and Innovativeness are considered as
the motivators of the technology, insecurity and discomfort work as inhibitors. TRI has been used in combination with TAM
to predict the technology adoption in the past (Pattansheti et al. 2016; Larasati and Santosa 2017).
A review of recent studies using TAM, TRI and TPB are presented in Table 2.
The description of the research model based on the combination of three adoption models viz., TAM, TRI, and TPB is
described in the next section.

3. Research model and hypothesis development

3.1. Research model
The review of literature carried in the previous section identified many different models and constructs that have been
reported in various research studies related to TAM, TPB, and TRI. The present research assimilates TAM, TPB, and TRI
for the following principal reasons. First, the user’s technology acceptance can be well explained by TAM and TRI (Davis
1989; Parasuraman 2000). Second, TAM is based on system-specific perceptions and TRI uses an individual’s general
inclination towards technology. This significant difference offers better insights on the acceptance of the technology (Yi,
Tung, and Wu 2003). Third, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use which are the cognitive dimensions in predicting
individual’s acceptance act as the mediating variables between the TRI constructs that are based on individual differences
(i.e. psychological traits) and behavioural intentions (Agarwal and Karahanna 2000). Lastly, TPB constructs like subjective
norms and perceived behaviour control which captures the control aspects of the users when connected with TAM constructs
provides additional insights on acceptance of the technology (Pattansheti et al. 2016; Xie et al. 2017).
In this study, we posit that the supply chain practitioner’s perception on the various constructs of TRI, TAM, and TPB
play an important role in understanding the adoption process of BT in supply chains. We propose an integrative research
model that is theoretically grounded in three well-established theories: (a) TRI, (b) TAM, and (c) TPB. The TRI model
provides the theoretical basis for measuring the perceived risks that act as the inhibiting factors during BT adoption in
supply chains. How the attitude towards the behavioural Intention gets developed and what role is played by perceived ease
of use and perceived usefulness will be measured by TAM. TPB will measure the effect of perceived behavioural control
and subjective norms s on the adoption process. The research model is depicted in Figure 1.
Next, we discuss the development of relevant hypotheses.
 International Journal of Production Research 2015

Table 2. Review of recent studies using TAM/TPB/TRI models in understanding adoption behaviour.
Author Adoption behaviour Model used Description
Ma et al. (2018) Municipal solid waste TPB In this paper, an extended TPB model was used to analyze
source-separated collection how householders’ attitudes, subjective norms, perceived
behaviour behavioural control, and situational factors affected
their overall behaviour. It was found that among all
TPB constructs, attitude played the most significant
role in the prediction of intentions. Subjective norms,
as well as perceived behaviour control, were not found
to be a significant predictor of INT. The significance of
situational factors confirmed the necessity of adding this
as an additional construct in the TPB model.
Verma and Sinha Mobile-based agricultural Extended TAM Perceived economic wellbeing was added as an antecedent
(2018) extension service. of perceived usefulness in the extended TAM model. It
was found that perceived economic well-being impacts
neither attitude nor intentions.
Larasati and ERP in SMEs TRI and TAM The study revealed that constructs of TRI and TAM gives a
Santosa (2017) better understanding about ERP implementation.
Issa and Hamm Adoption of organic farming TPB TPB model showed that farmers’ positive attitudes and
(2017) perceived behaviour control towards the conversion to
organic farming had a positive influence on the intentions.
It was also observed that subjective norms have a low
direct effect on the intentions.
Xie et al. (2017) E-government adoption: TAM-TPB- The study finds that both the technological aspect
Perceived Risk (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) and the
-Trust notion of uncertainty (trust and risk) are important for
e-government adoption.
Pattansheti et al. Mobile banking adoption TRI-TPB-TAM The findings propose that the integrated constructs of
(2016) TRI-TPB and TAM are useful indicators in explaining the
adoption behaviour of the Indian mobile banking users.
Howell (2016) Social media site use TAM Study results indicated positive and very highly significant
correlations between the constructs perceived usefulness
and attitude, attitude and intention, trust, and attitude, and
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.
Alalwan et al. Mobile banking adoption Extended TAM Extended TAM, using perceived risk and self-efficacy is
(2016) used to examine customer’s intention to adopt mobile
banking in Jordanian context. The results showed that
INT is significantly influenced by perceived usefulness,
perceived ease of use, and perceived risk.
Folkinshteyn and Bitcoin adoption TAM Recommends use of TAM model for analyzing the bitcoin
Lennon (2016) adoption behaviour.
Kumpajaya and Bitcoin adoption TAM and Innova- The results suggested that perceived compatibility and
Dhewanto (2015) tion diffusion knowledge towards Bitcoin influences the Bitcoin
theory adoption intention
Gao and Bai (2014) Internet of things adoption Extended TAM The model was based on three technology factors (perceived
usefulness, perceived ease of use, and trust); one social
context factor (social influence); and two individual
user characteristics (perceived enjoyment and perceived
behaviour control.
It was found that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, social influence, perceived enjoyment, and perceived
behaviour control has an impact on predicting the intention.
The other findings included the insignificant role of trust on
intentions, and the significant effect of perceived ease of use
and trust on perceived usefulness.

3.2. Hypothesis development

3.2.1. TAM
Perceived ease of use is the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort (Dholakia
and Dholakia 2004). Numerous researchers have provided support that perceived ease of use significantly affects usage
intention; it is an essential forecaster of technology adoption. Perceived ease of use refers to the degree to which a person
2016 S. Kamble et al.

Figure 1. Research model for BT adoption.

believes that using a particular system would be free of effort (Davis 1989; Liu, Li, and Carlsson 2010). Perceived ease of
use can be considered as an important determining factor of technology usage, and it has been proven that it attempts to
reduce their cognitive effort (Cho 2011). Individuals show more inclinations towards using a system when it is perceived to
be easily usable. Thus perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are closely related as it is perceived to be more useful
when a system comes with ease of use. Therefore, perceived usefulness has been defined as ‘the degree to which a person
believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance’ (Davis 1989). According to Gong, Xu,
and Yu (2004), perceived usefulness is defined as ‘the user’s ‘subjective probability that using a specific application system
will increase his or her expectations.’ Perceived usefulness is the primary antecedent that determines the behavioural aim to
use a information system (Venkatesh and Davis 2000). Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1989) proposed that perceived ease
of use is an antecedent of perceived usefulness. The results from previous research also revealed the significant effect of
perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Wang et al. 2003; Kleijnen, Wetzels, and
De Ruyter 2004). Chen and Chen (2008) posit that two particular behavioural beliefs, perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use, are two fundamental factors for predicting user acceptance, and that the effect of external variables on intention
is mediated by these two key beliefs (Davis 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Mathieson 1991; Adams, Nelson,
and Todd 1992). Perceived usefulness is recognised as having a substantial positive effect on the intention of adopters to use
the innovation. Numerous studies have shown that perceived usefulness is the primary predictor of information technology
usage (Davis 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Venkatesh and Morris 2000; Gefen, Karahanna, and Straub 2003).
Therefore,
H1: Perceived ease of use positively affects perceived usefulness of BT

H2: Perceived ease of use positively affects attitudes towards using the BT

H3: Perceived usefulness positively affects attitudes towards using the BT

Attitude is considered a multidimensional construct comprised of cognitive, affective, and conative components. Most
attitude measurement techniques resulted in capturing only the emotional side of the concept (Ajzen and Fishbein 2005).
Research has widely accepted the attitude definition by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) in that attitude is ‘an individual’s positive
or negative feelings (evaluative affect) about performing the target behavior’ (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Moon and
Kim 2001; Venkatesh et al. 2003). That is, attitudes are often considered overall affective evaluations (Ajzen and Fishbein
1980). The attitude is the psychological tendency depending on a degree of favour or disfavour (Eagly and Chaiken 1993).
Attitude is defined as ‘the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in
question’ (Ajzen 1991). Attitude toward user acceptance of technology is defined as an individual’s overall efficient reaction
(liking, enjoyment, joy, and pleasure) to use technology (Davis 1989; Taylor and Todd 1995). Therefore,
H4: Attitude positively affects behavioral Intention to use the BT

There are some studies which establish and proves the significant effect of perceived usefulness on the behavioural Intention
(Davis 1989; Agarwal and Prasad 1998; Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Morris 2000; Gefen, Karahanna, and Straub 2003;
Guriting and Oly Ndubisi 2006). Therefore,
 International Journal of Production Research 2017

H5: Perceived usefulness positively affects behavioral Intention to use the BT

3.2.2. TRI Constructs

Discomfort is defined as ‘a perceived lack of control over technology and a feeling of being overwhelmed by it’ (Para-
suraman and Colby 2001). People who have a high level of discomfort toward new technologies tend to find technology
less easy to use (Walczuch, Lemmink, and Streukens 2007). Similarly, Discomfort may have a negative effect on perceived
usefulness, because it is an inhibitor of using new technologies (Parasuraman 2000; Walczuch, Lemmink, and Streukens
2007; Kuo, Liu, and Ma 2013). Discomfort reflects the fear and anxieties of users while using technology. Discomfort may
not directly affect perceived usefulness, but it is expected to affect perceived ease of use. Discomfort can be reduced by
using informative feedback (Dabholkar 1996; Walczuch, Lemmink, and Streukens 2007). Therefore,
H6: Discomfort while using blockchain negatively affects perceived usefulness of BT
H7: Discomfort while using blockchain negatively affects perceived ease of use of BT
The insecurity is related to technology is related to ambiguity and low usage (Parasuraman and Colby 2001; Tsikriktsis 2004
and Kuo, Liu, and Ma 2013; Upadhyay and Chattopadhyay 2015; Yang et al. 2015; Chaouali 2016). Son and Han (2011)
view insecurity as an inhibitor of technology readiness. Insecure customers are likely to be doubtful towards new feature
and might not even want to try whether they would be beneficial for them. Thorough assessments of risk analysis would be
required in these situations (Hundy and Hamblin 1988). In their study, Walczuch, Lemmink, and Streukens (2007) found a
negative influence of insecurity on perceived usefulness. This is confirmed by Godoe and Johansen (2012) who also did not
see a relationship. By earlier research, we, therefore, assume that insecurity predicted lower levels of perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use. Thus, we hypothesise:
H8: Insecurity negatively affects perceived usefulness of BT
H9: Insecurity negatively affects perceived ease of use of BT

3.2.3. TPB Constructs

Subjective norms are the person’s perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not
perform the behaviour in question (Ajzen 1991). Choi et al. (2008) found that that subjective norm have the most significant
effect on behavioural Intention. Subjective norms are found to influence the perceived usefulness (Lee, Lee, and Lee 2006)
and behavioural Intention (Choi et al. 2008). Subjective norms are observed to affect the person’s feelings about the utility
of the technology (Yi et al. 2003).
H10: Subjective norms positively affects the perceived usefulness of BT
H11: Subjective norms positively affects behavioral Intention to use the BT
Ajzen (1987, 1991) and Ajzen and Madden (1986) developed the TRA further into TPB by adding new determinant
of Behavioral Intention, perceived behaviour control, which is based on Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy. Perceived
behavioural control refers to people’s perceptions of their ability to perform a given behaviour to the extent that it is an accu-
rate reflection that perceived behaviour control could, together with behavioural Intention, be used to predict behaviour. Past
studies have found inconsistent findings as regards the relationship between perceived behaviour control and behavioural
Intention (Chai and Pavlou 2004; George 2004).
H12: Perceived behavior control positively affects behavioral Intention to use BT

4. Research method
This quantitative research involves an online survey for data collection. Online survey provides benefits such as saving time
and expenses by overcoming geographic distances. The online survey was developed to examine the relationship between
constructs proposed in the research model.

4.1. Participants
A sample of 181 supply chain professionals from four major cities of India (Mumbai, New Delhi, Bangalore, and Chennai)
was considered for this study. The initial sample consisted of 450 respondents representing 150 companies derived from
2018 S. Kamble et al.

CMIE database. The responses from the participants were collected through an email survey, and the participation was kept
voluntary with follow up emails from the researcher at frequent interval. The survey questionnaires were sent to key infor-
mants who are functional heads associated with SCM (SC Planning, Procurement, Manufacturing, Logistics/Transportation,
and Warehouse) and had a minimum work experience of two years in the SC domain. To increase the content validity of
the instrument, a guideline was given in the instrument requesting the participants to submit their responses only if they are
aware of the concept of BT and its application in the supply chain. The final sample size of 181 in our study represented
102 companies (manufacturing, technology companies, and logistics companies). The researchers acknowledge the support
extended by the alumni of National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai working in the SCM domain of the
above companies in improving the response rate. The sample of 181 respondents satisfies the minimum requirement of five
observations per parameter (Bentler and Chou 1987; Bollen 1989; Willis, Genchev, and Chen 2016). In our study, we have
33 parameters with a minimum sample size requirement of 165 respondents. Further, Sideridis et al. (2014) and Wolf et al.
(2013) have recommended small samples as sufficient for SEM analysis. Considering practical constraints in collecting
data on an exploring subject like BT adoption, the sample of 181 supply chain practitioners is found to be acceptable for
conducting the CFA and SEM analysis.

4.2. Instrument Development

The content domain of each construct should be thoroughly covered in an efficient instrument which has been devel-
oped for the research purpose (Nunnally and Bernstein 1978; Churchill 1979). All the items, which are used to measure
a construct should agree with each other, while at the same time items of one construct should not match with the items
of any other construct. To test and validate the model in Figure 1 a survey instrument was developed based on previ-
ous literature. The items and the scales for the TRI, TAM and TPB constructs were chosen from previous studies. The
unit of analysis was focused on the supply chain practitioners, and the responses were measured using a 5-point Likert
Scale on an interval level ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ See Table 3 for details on the measurement
items.
The questionnaire was developed in English language and was subjected to content validity. Although, the measure-
ment items developed were adopted from the previously done studies. Still, it was pretested with subject experts to ensure
that questions were relevant to the concept of BT in the supply chain context. Twelve subject experts were selected for
the instrument pre-testing that included four academicians, two each from the area of SCM and information technology
and eight supply chain professionals working with the automobile (three nos.), FMCG (two nos.) and logistics (three nos.)
industry. The subject experts guided the researchers to select the relevant constructs for the study. The experts recom-
mended dropping the two constructs from TRI (viz., optimism and innovativeness). The experts were of the opinion that
the constructs perceived behavioural control and optimism captured similar beliefs and recommended to retain perceived
behavioural control. Optimism and innovativeness are the drivers of technology readiness, with optimism measuring the
belief that technology offers people increased control, flexibility, and efficiency in their work, and innovativeness measur-
ing the tendency of an organisation or a person to be a technology pioneer and thought leader (Godoe and Johansen 2012;
Illia, Ngniatedema, and Huang 2015). Further, the experts felt that optimism and innovativeness will always drive the adop-
tion process of technologies like BT, which promises to bring a revolutionary paradigm shift in the manner the transactions
are carried out in SCM. The suggestions given by the selected subject experts were discussed with another set of six experts
before the final decision on dropping them was taken.

4.3. Data collection

The data was collected from 181 supply chain professionals through email as detailed in section 4.1. A pilot study on 25
randomly selected supply chain professionals was conducted to test the reliability of the measurement items. The Cron-
bach alpha (α) values for all the measurement items were found to be highly reliable and valid with α scores above 0.65
(Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics 2009a, 2009b). The measurement instrument for the final survey was sent to 450 supply
chain professionals with the URL of the survey listed in the email. The email provided the details of the survey that included
the purpose, objectives, and methodology of the study. The emails were sent on 16th November 2017 with four follow up
reminders on 30th November, 15th December 30th December 2017 and 15th January 2018. A total number of 202 responses
were received after the end of eight weeks with a response rate of 44.88% of which 21 responses were not considered for the
incomplete study information. The total valid responses considered for the final study were 181. Although the researchers
had requested the survey recipients to respond the questionnaire only if they are aware of the BT applications in SCM, it is
difficult to ascertain the number of participants who could not return to the survey because of their lack of awareness on BT
applications in SCM.
 International Journal of Production Research 2019

Table 3. Details of measurement items.

Construct Measurement items Source
Discomfort DISC1: It will be difficult to understand and apply the concept of BT in supply Parasuraman (1999),
chains. Parasuraman (2000),
DISC2: Sometimes, you think that BT is designed for use by only complex Godoe and Johansen
supply chains. (2012)
DISC3: I feel that a service provider or an integrator who is more knowledgeable
than us may take advantage of our SC.
DISC4: Technology always seems to fail at the worst possible time
Insecurity INSC1: I do not consider it safe in our firm adopting BT Parasuraman (1999), Para-
INSC2: I worry that other people will see the information you send over the BT suraman (2000),Godoe
INSC3: I do not feel confident our firm doing business with a place that can and Johansen (2012)
only be reached online
INSC4: Any business transaction you do electronically should be confirmed
later with something in writing
INSC5: Whenever something gets automated, you need to check carefully that
the machine or system is not making mistakes
INSC6 When you call a business, you prefer to talk to a person rather than a
machine.
Perceived PU1: Using BT will help minimise my transaction delays Davis (1989), Godoe and
usefulness PU2: Using BT would improve SC performance Johansen (2012)
PU3: Using BT would improve SC productivity
PU4: Using BT would improve SC effectiveness
Perceived ease PEU1: I feel the features BT will be easy to use Davis (1989), Godoe
of use PEU2: I think BT is clear and understandable and Johansen (2012),
PEU3: I think it will be easy for me to remember and perform tasks using BT Aboelmaged and Gebba
PEU4: I feel BT will be more easy to use compared to the conventional practices (2013)
of managing supply chains.
Attitude ATTI1: In my opinion, it is desirable to use BT in SCs Davis (1989), Taylor
ATTI2: I think it will be good for the SC to use BT and Todd (1995),
ATTI3: I guess using BT is a good idea Aboelmaged and Gebba
ATTI4: Overall, my attitude toward BT is favourable (2013)
ATTI5: I will feel happy if my company implements BT
Subjective SN1: Most of my colleagues and SC partners working with me expect my firm Taylor and Todd (1995),
norms to use BT Wu and Chen (2005)
SN2: Most of my colleagues and SC partners believe using BT is a wise decision
SN3: People whose opinions I value prefer that my firm use BT
SN4: The fact that my competitors are exploring the use BT puts a pressure on
our firm to use BT
Perceived BC1: Our firm would be able to use BT well Ho and Ko (2008), Wu
behavioural BC2: Using BT is entirely within our firm’s control and Chen (2005),
control BC3: Our firm has the resources, knowledge, and ability to use the BT Aboelmaged and Gebba
(2013)
Behavioural BI1: I predict that our firm will use BT on a regular basis in the future Ho and Ko (2008), Hsu,
intention BI2: Our firm will use BT in future Chiu, and Ju (2004),
BI3: I expect that our firm will use BT or a similar type of system for SC Venkatesh et al. (2003),
transactions Venkatesh and Zhang
(2010).

Kolmogorov and Smirnov, two independent sample tests were used to test the sample distributions for the nonresponse
bias of the early and the late respondent (Ryans 1974). As suggested by Wallace and Mellor (1988) the mean responses to
all the constructs used in the hypothesis given by 45 respondents of the last three weeks were compared with those of the
random sample of 136 respondents drawn from the returns of the early five weeks to identify if there exist any significant
differences. The analysis was necessary because it has been found that the respondents who sent in their questionnaires late
are roughly similar to non-respondents (Oppenheim 1966).
The findings in Table 4 did not show any statistically significant differences in the responses indicating the absence of
nonresponse bias. Further, to test the presence of Common Method Bias (CMB) we used Harman’s single factor score, in
which all items (measuring latent variables) were loaded into one common factor (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The total variance
for a single factor was observed to be 37% suggesting that the data is not affected by CMB.
2020 S. Kamble et al.

Table 4. Non response bias.

Construct Respondent category N Mean Std. deviation Sig. value
Perceived ease of use Early Respondent 136 3.65 .857 1.00
Late Respondent 45 3.63 .945
Perceived usefulness Early Respondent 136 3.78 .982 1.00
Late Respondent 45 3.81 .952
Attitude Early Respondent 136 3.61 .937 0.90
Late Respondent 45 3.73 0.951
Insecurity Early Respondent 136 3.51 1.046 0.94
Late Respondent 45 3.39 1.094
Discomfort Early Respondent 136 3.18 1.050 0.62
Late Respondent 45 3.37 .973
Subjective norms Early Respondent 136 3.50 .903 0.93
Late Respondent 45 3.39 .992
Behavioural intention Early Respondent 136 3.82 .933 0.63
Late Respondent 45 3.89 .989
Perceived behaviour control Early Respondent 136 3.87 .583 1
Late Respondent 45 3.93 .613

5. Results
A two-step method was used to test the model. In the first step the reliability and validity of the measurement items were
tested and the second step analyzed the structural model.

5.1. Measurement model

Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2003) define validity as ‘the extent to which data collection methods accurately measure
what they were intended to measure.’ In this study we performed the following validity and reliability checks:

• Convergent validity
• Composite Reliability
• Discriminant validity

5.1.1. Convergent validity

Convergent validity exists when the theoretical construct developed for the study correlates strongly with the items used to
measure it. In other words, there has to be a high proportion of variance shared across the indicators of a given construct.
The eight constructs were evaluated for their convergent validity using the following guidelines:

i. The factor loadings for all the measurement items must be significant and above 0.50 as recommended by Hair et al.
(2014).
ii. The composite reliability of the construct must be above 0.70 (Gefen, Straub, and Boudreau 2000; Hair et al. 2014).
iii. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of each construct must exceed 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Pallant 2000;
Hair et al. 2014).

The factor loading values were estimated using AMOS 21 and presented in Table 5. The factor loading value for the
measurement item SN4 (λ = 0.43) was found to be less than 0.70 indicating that this scale has internal consistency issues.
Therefore, SN4 was dropped based on the result of the factor loadings. After dropping SN4, the composite reliability and
AVE were extracted using the AMOS plugin developed by Gaskin and Lim (2016). The composite reliability and AVE
values are presented in Table 6.
All the composite reliability values were found to be above the recommended value of 0.70 indicating good indicator
reliability of the constructs. The AVE values suggested that the construct insecurity (AVE of 0.478) is below the recom-
mended value of 0.5 not satisfying the convergent validity. Hence the construct insecurity was dropped from the study. It
was found that the measurement items included in insecurity got varied responses from the supply chain practitioners. The
reason for the same may be the fact that most of them did not consider any ambiguity towards the use of BT and are curious
about how BT will benefit their supply chains when implemented. The subject experts were consulted before dropping the
insecurity construct from the study.
 International Journal of Production Research 2021

Table 5. Standardised factor loadings of the construct wise items.

Construct Items Factor Loading (λ)
Perceived ease of use PEOU1 .950
PEOU2 .856
PEOU3 .931
PEOU4 .899
Perceived usefulness PU1 .757
PU2 .807
PU3 .759
PU4 .728
Attitude ATT1 .885
ATT2 .845
ATT3 .875
ATT4 .855
ATT5 .875
Insecurity INSEC1 .777
INSEC2 .817
INSEC3 .628
Subjective Norm SN1 .918
SN2 .920
SN3 .519
SN4 .431
Behavioral Intention INT1 .731
INT2 .744
INT3 .675
Perceived Behavioural Control BC1 .870
BC2 .911
BC3 .885
Discomfort DISC1 .824
DISC2 .848
DISC3 .650
Note: All Factor loadings are significant at p < 0.01.

Table 6. Composite reliability and AVE values.

Constructs CR AVE
Behavioural Intention 0.904 0.759
Perceived ease of use 0.955 0.841
Perceived usefulness 0.915 0.729
Attitude 0.982 0.917
insecurity 0.731 0.478
Discomfort 0.770 0.534
Subjective Norm 0.850 0.613
Perceived behaviorial control 0.911 0.774

5.1.2. Discriminant validity

Discriminant validity investigates the extent to which the constructs in a proposed model are distinct from each other. To
check the discriminant validity the square roots of the AVE’s were compared with the correlation for each of the constructs.
The square root AVE of the selected construct should be higher than the correlations between the specific construct and all the
other constructs in the model (Cooper and Zmud 1990; Hair et al. 1998). The results of the discriminant validity are presented
in Table 7. The diagonal items in the table represent the square root of AVE’s, which is a measure of variance between the
construct and its indicators, and the off-diagonal items represent the correlation between constructs. It is observed from
Table 7 that the square root of AVE (in bold) is higher than the correlation between the constructs indicating that all the
constructs in Table 7 satisfied the discriminant validity and can be used for testing the structural model.
After performing the reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement instruments the confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to evaluate the model fit of the measurement model to confirm the hypothesised
structure. The construct insecurity and the measurement item SN4 were not considered in the model. The modified CFA
measurement model is shown in Figure 2.
2022 S. Kamble et al.

Table 7. Discriminant validity values.

INT PEOU PU ATT INSEC DISC SN PBC
INT 0.871
PEOU 0.365 0.917
PU 0.820 0.411 0.854
ATT 0.706 0.293 0.724 0.958
DISC 0.149 0.084 0.141 0.177 0.691 0.731
SN 0.467 0.218 0.450 0.435 0.113 0.200 0.783
PBC 0.427 0.131 0.368 0.295 0.167 0.123 0.209 0.880
Note: ATT: Attitude; DISC: Discomfort; INT: Behavioral Intentions; PBC: Perceived Behavioral Control; PEOU: Perceived ease of use;
PU: Perceived usefulness; SN: Subjective Norms.

Figure 2. The measurement model.

As seen from the Figure 2 an over-identified model with 254 positive degrees of freedom (df) was identified for the pro-
posed model. The model estimation was done using Maximum Likelihood (ML) method. The output yielded an admissible
solution as any concern for multi-collinearity was ruled out, and the minimum iteration was achieved. The goodness of fit
indices was analyzed to assess the model fit. The results indicated that the model fits the data reasonably well. The χ 2 value
 International Journal of Production Research 2023

Table 8. Model-fit statistics of the masurement model.

Model-fit statistic Recommended Obtained
CMIN 365
df – 254
significance p < = 0.05 0.000
CMIN DF < 5.0 1.437
GFI > 0.90 0.867
AGFI > 0.90 0.830
NFI > 0.90 0.935
RFI > 0.90 0.925
TLI > 0.90 0.976
CFI > 0.90 0.979
RMSEA < 0.05 0.049

Table 9. Hypothesis test results.

Hypothesis No. Hypothesis statement Estimate S.E. C.R. Sig. Result
H1 PEOU → PU .262 .055 4.761 *** Supported
H2 PEOU → ATT − .011 .053 − .216 .829 Rejected
H3 PU → ATT .853 .095 8.997 *** Supported
H4 ATT → INT .193 .069 2.782 .005 Supported
H5 PU → INT .653 .101 6.445 *** Supported
H6 DISC → PU .047 .088 .531 .595 Rejected
H7 DISC → PEOU .144 .128 1.126 .260 Rejected
H8 INSEC → PU – – – – Rejected
H9 INSEC → PEOU – – – – Rejected
H10 SNs → PU .330 .063 5.265 *** Supported
H11 SNs → INT .064 .049 1.292 .196 Rejected
H12 PBC → INT .203 .067 3.012 .003 Supported
Note: ATT: Attitude; DISC: Discomfort; INT: Behavioral Intention; PBC: Perceived Behavioral Control; PEOU: Perceived ease of use;
PU: Perceived usefulness; SN: Subjective Norms.

was observed to be 365 with a χ 2 /df ratio of 1.437 which is lower than the threshold value of 3 as suggested by Carmines
and McIver (1981). Satisfactory values were obtained on other fit indices as shown in the Table 8. The values of GFI and
AGFI were observed to be 0.867 and 0.830. The NFI, RFI, TLI and CFI values were found to be greater than 0.90. The
RMSEA value was also within the desired limit of ≤ 0.05 (Hair et al. 2014).
The measurement CFA model suggested an acceptable model fit based on the values of different common model fit
measures presented in Table 8.

5.2. Results of SEM

The research model in the form of the structural model is shown in Figure 3. The structural model has seven unobserved
latent factors, and twenty-five observed variables. These 25 variables act as the indicators of their respective underlying
latent constructs. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was conducted using AMOS 21 to test the hypothesis formulated as
shown in Figure 3. In reviewing the SEM path model, it can be observed that attitude, influences the blockchain adoption
intention. Attitude is affected by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Discomfort has no direct effect on perceived
usefulness, and perceived ease of use. The paths are derived based on the findings of the literature and modified based
on the reliability and validity tests. The hypothesis (H8 and H9) stating insecurity influences perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness were not considered in the SEM path model as the construct insecurity failed the convergent validity
test.
The goodness of fit indices were χ 2 = 489.14 with df = 267, RMSEA = 0.06, NNFI = 0.914, CFI = 0.959,
TLI = 0953 and GFI = 0.877 which were within the threshold values suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999). Looking at
the number of constructs in our model the fit indices are acceptable. The results of the hypothesis tests are shown in Table 9.
The accepted model with the standardised coefficients for the paths is shown in Figure 3.
2024 S. Kamble et al.

Figure 3. The structural model.

It is observed from the above Table 9 that from the total of eight tested relationships in the final SEM model, total five
of them were found to be statistically significant (p ≤ 0.01). The findings further report that the independent constructs
explained 68.7% of the variance in behavioural Intention (R2 = 0.687).

6. Discussions
6.1. Major findings
This study provides evidence that perceived usefulness, attitude, perceived behaviour control, and Subjective Norm s are
related to the BT implementation intention. However, the discomfort with regards to adopting complex technologies was
observed to be an insignificant variable during BT implementation as it neither influenced the perceived ease of use nor the
perceived usefulness (rejecting H6 and H7). This finding deviates from the previous studies which have viewed discomfort
inhibiting the perceived ease of use (Dabholkar 1996; Walczuch, Lemmink, and Streukens 2007). However, the result finds
support in the study conducted by Pattansheti et al. (2016).
 International Journal of Production Research 2025

Our results indicate that the perceived ease of use influences the perceived usefulness (supporting the hypothesis H1).
This is in line with most of the other studies (Amoako-Gyampah and Salam 2004; Lee 2009; Shih, Chen, and Chen 2012;
Gao and Bai 2014; Kumpajaya and Dhewanto 2015; Rajan and Baral 2015; Bröhl et al. 2016). The effect of the perceived
use of ease on the attitude of the supply chain practitioners was found to be insignificant (rejecting hypothesis H2). This
result contradicts with the finding of the other studies (Gamal Aboelmaged 2010; Lee 2009; Shih, Chen, and Chen 2012;
Pattansheti et al. 2016) which have suggested that perceived ease of use positively influences the attitude. In this way,
our study empirically proves that perceived ease of use does not directly affect the attitude. However, the study finds that
perceived usefulness influences the attitude positively (accepting hypothesis H3) and find support in other previous studies
(Lee 2009; Gamal Aboelmaged 2010; Shih, Chen, and Chen 2012; Pattansheti et al. 2016). Therefore, it may be inferred
from the findings of this study that perceived usefulness acts as a mediating variable between the perceived ease of use and
attitude. The positive attitude of the supply chain practitioners towards BT is an outcome of perceived usefulness, which is
influenced by perceived ease of use.
Our results further show that perceived usefulness has a significant influence on the BI (accepting hypothesis H5)
and is supported by the findings of the previous studies (Gamal Aboelmaged 2010; Gao and Bai 2014; Kumpajaya and
Dhewanto 2015; Rajan and Baral 2015; Bröhl et al. 2016). This finding further strengthens the view that the supply chain
practitioners give BT utilities more importance. It was interesting to find that subjective norm influenced the perceived
usefulness (accepting hypothesis H10). This is in line with the finding from the study by Gumussoy, Calisir, and Bayram
(2007). The finding suggests that that the peer pressure from competing for supply chains successfully implementing BT
plays a decisive role in creating awareness of BTs utility. The subjective norm was found to have insignificant influence
on BI (rejecting hypothesis H11) finding support in previous studies (Sentosa and Mat 2012; Moons and De Pelsmacker
2015; Safa et al. 2015). Our results also consider that attitude influences the BI (accepting hypothesis H4). This finding
is consistent with those of Pattansheti et al. (2016), Lee (2009), Shih, Chen, and Chen (2012), Amoako-Gyampah and
Salam (2004), Moons and De Pelsmacker (2015), Safa et al. (2015) and Gamal Aboelmaged (2010). The effect of perceived
behavioural control on BI was found to be insignificant (rejecting hypothesis H12).

6.2. Theoretical implications

There has been growing interest in the research of BT which is evidenced by the increasing number of calls for research
papers on various aspects of BT from reputed journals like Future Generation Computer Systems, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Computer and Indus-
trial Engineering and others. Our study advances the literature in two ways. First, no studies have so far empirically tested
the adoption of BT in the supply chain. This study presents the link between a set of technology adoption constructs that
aim at understanding the adoption of BT in supply chains. The constructs are derived from traditional adoption theories like
TAM, TPB, and TRI, and helps us to understand in what way these constructs influence the BT adoption. The statistically
validated model is found to have high explanatory power with the independent constructs explaining 68.5% variance of the
behavioural Intention (R2 = 0.685) and hence proves to be a valuable contribution to the existing body of research.
Secondly, our study advances the literature of technology adoption and tests a unified model integrating the theories of
TRI, TAM, and TPB. The findings reveal that the TRI construct does not play a significant role in influencing the behavioural
intentions of the supply chain practitioners for BT adoption. This study empirically validates that the TRI constructs need
not be given importance while adopting BT in supply chains and the integration may be limited to TAM and TPB theories.
We believe that this study will serve as the foundation and lead to many more studies on BT adoption in the future.

6.3. Managerial implications

The findings of our study also have significant managerial implications and insights that may allow companies to manage
better and coordinate the successful implementation of BT in supply chains. First, the study helps to identify the critical
constructs for successful adoption of BT in supply chains and how the SC practitioner’s behavioural Intentions on adopting
BT gets developed.
The results of this study serve critical managerial implications to the supply chain practitioners and companies involved
in the implementation and deployment of BT. The study investigates the relationship between TRI, TAM, and TPB con-
structs and establishes that there is a significant direct effect between TAM and TPB constructs however the TRI was found
not to influence developing positive behavioural Intention.
The TRI construct, insecurity was dropped during the scale validation process, and discomfort was found to have an
insignificant effect on perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. This means that the supply chain practitioners are
not overwhelmed or see lack of control over BT. Further, it also reflects that the practitioners don’t perceive any distrust
2026 S. Kamble et al.

towards the BT or have any skepticism towards the BT’s ability to function correctly, as they don’t perceive any potentially
harmful consequences of BT. Hence, we may conclude that the supply chain practitioner’s do not consider discomfort and
insecurity as the inhibiting factors in the BT adoption process. These perceptions on insecurity and discomfort may be
related to their previous experience, expertise, knowledge, and familiarity with blockchain or similar technologies (Agarwal
and Prasad 1999; Kim, Ferrin, and Rao 2008). In the present study, we may relate this to the educational qualifications,
expertise and the work experience of the selected respondents. All the chosen respondents in this study have a minimum
qualification of post-graduate degree in engineering, two years of work experience and work in the supply chain domain.
For the companies implementing BT, the finding implies that their marketing efforts need not focus on creating awareness
on the BT, but they are required to develop interest and drive the practitioners towards its successful implementation through
effective buyer-supplier dyads (Oosterhuis, Van Der Vaart, and Molleman 2011).
Perceived ease of use was found to have a positive influence on perceived usefulness. The finding implies that the
practitioners perceive that using BT is free of efforts and this feature would help them to derive maximum benefits from
the BT for their supply chain effectiveness. Practitioners will thus exhibit a higher intention to implement BT. The finding
of the study reveals that the behavioural Intention of implementing BT mainly operates through perceived usefulness. For
the companies implementing BT in supply chains, this finding implies that their efforts should focus on making BT more
user-friendly. They should develop BT applications which are easy to use as well as offer great value regarding its utility
for the supply chains.
The study found that subjective norm has a direct influence on the perceived usefulness but not the behavioural Intention.
This finding implies that the practitioner’s behaviour gets influenced or changed based on how other important people have
reacted to the usefulness of the BT in supply chains. It further implies that the practitioners once convinced that their existing
supply chain partners are advising the use of BT, or their competitors are implementing BT for improvement of their supply
chain may put pressure on them to implement BT in their organisations. For the companies implementing BT in supply
chains, this finding implies that the efforts should be focused on sharing and presenting success stories of other companies
those who have implemented BT for their supply chains and showcase the benefits they are achieving as compared to the
traditional supply chains without BT applications. The companies are required to highlight successful BT validations.
The other TPB construct namely perceived behaviour control which captured the supply chain practitioner’s ability to
perform a given behaviour showed a direct positive influence on the behavioural Intention of adopting BT. It is implied from
the finding that perceived behaviour control can, together with intention, be used to predict the behaviour of BT adoption
in the supply chains. For the companies implementing BT, the finding implies that their marketing efforts need to focus
on influencing the decision makers in the buying organisations to purchase the BT applications and implement them. The
marketing efforts should be on identifying the decision makers in the buying process, identify and analyze the factors they
would consider while buying the BT product and understand their buying process.

7. Limitations and conclusions

As in any other studies this study also has few limitations. Some of the limitations are because of the inherent features of
BT and the assumptions made for the study. The various assumptions and limitations are discussed below.

7.1. Assumptions
• Supply chain practitioner’s familiarity with BT in supply chains
BT is a new technology, and not many companies have gone for its full-fledged deployment in their supply chains yet.
The supply chain practitioners are familiar with this technology but lack experience or practical knowledge of its various
know-hows. It is observed during the survey that most of the practitioners have learned about this technology based on their
interest and are aware of the abilities a decentralised database can offer to a supply chain as compared to a traditional supply
chain. BT is relatively a new concept in India with few companies planning to implement in their organisations. Since we
assume that there will be the more extensive adoption of BT in supply chains over time, a longitudinal study to evaluate this
progress will be of interest. In the present study, we have taken care that all the supply chain practitioners are post-graduate
engineers and have more than two years of work experience in some supply chain domain. This ensures that the selected
experts have considered not only the benefits that would be derived from the successful implementation of BT in the supply
chain, but also the various issues related to the developing the technical capabilities for deployment.
• BT is a standalone technology
BT is not to be seen as a standalone technology as it relies heavily on accurate data collection and analytics. Internet
of things (IoT) and big data technologies play a significant role in ensuring high-quality data is collected for successful
 International Journal of Production Research 2027

adoption of BT in the supply chains. The various IoT devices enable the collection of accurate data from multiple sources
in the supply chain. The big data technologies focus on data collection in real-time, data storage and data analytics. In the
present study, the views of the experts are mostly inclined to BT applications in SCM. Therefore, it is suggested that the
future BT adoption studies should consider incorporating other technologies that support BT.
• BT helps in achieving a high level of privacy and security in supply chains:
The expert’s responses in the present study may be based on the belief that BT is a full proof technology providing a
high level of security and privacy. Satoshi Nakamoto had highlighted a notable flaw when he launched bitcoin, referred as
51% attack. According to him ‘if more than half of the computers working as nodes to service the network tell a lie, the
lie will become the truth.’ However, these are possibilities, as no reports of such incidents taking place are available. In the
event of such security lapses, the expert’s views on the BT adoption may change.
• Government regulations support the BT
The literature on BT identifies that the support from the Government regarding framing regulatory and governance rules
on BT transactions is significant for successful adoption of BT in supply chains. We did not examine the effect of the same
on the adoption of BT. Therefore, the future studies will be required to conduct a comparative study between the adoption
of BT in countries where the Governments is simplifying and enabling the use of BT and countries where the Government
is skeptical. The results of such studies will be very interesting.
• BT applies to all the supply chains
In this study, we did not distinguish between the diverse types of supply chains such as consumer products, durable
goods, retail chains, etc. It is believed that the IT, and strategic choices for different supply chains vary and therefore it
would be interesting to take this difference into account to create a more holistic adoption model addressing the needs of the
various supply chains. However, the rate at which BT would be adopted in supply chains will highly depend on successful
validations, and therefore it is required that the marketers develop more BT applications that offer great value to the users.
In conclusion, the results of our study suggest that the proposed BT adoption model holds a significant explanatory
power. Although the integration of the TRI and TPB constructs with the TAM looked theoretically appealing, empirically
it was found that TRI is insignificant and do not influence the BT adoption process. The study reveals that the most crit-
ical constructs explaining behavioural Intention for BT adoption in supply chains are perceived usefulness, attitude, and
perceived behaviour control. Further, perceived ease of use and subjective norms were found to develop the perceptions
on perceived usefulness, and perceived usefulness helped in building the attitude towards the BT adoption. The signifi-
cant overall impact of the model proves the importance of the developed model. The research presents a holistic approach
for future studies on the adoption of new information science-based technologies. For BT implementing practitioners, the
research offers valuable insights for developing BT solutions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Abeyratne, S. A., and R. P. Monafared. 2016. “Blockchain Ready Manufacturing Supply Chain Using Distributed Ledger.” International
Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology 05 (09): 1–10.
Aboelmaged, M., and T. R. Gebba. 2013. “Mobile Banking Adoption: an Examination of Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of
Planned Behavior.” International Journal of Business Research and Development 2 (1): 36–50.
Adams, D. A., R. R. Nelson, and P. A. Todd. 1992. “Perceived Usefulness, Ease of use, and Usage of Information Technology: A
Replication.” MIS Quarterly 16: 227–247.
Agarwal, R., and E. Karahanna. 2000. “Time Flies When You’re Having fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs About Information
Technology Usage.” MIS Quarterly 24: 665–694.
Agarwal, R., and J. Prasad. 1998. “The Antecedents and Consequents of User Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption.” Decision
Support Systems 22 (1): 15–29.
Ajzen, I. 1985. “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior.” In Action Control, 11–39. Berlin: Springer.
Ajzen, I. 1987. “Attitudes, Traits, and Actions: Dispositional Prediction of Behavior in Personality and Social Psychology.” Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 20 (1): 1–63.
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179–211.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2028 S. Kamble et al.

Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 2005. “The Influence of Attitudes on Behaviour.” In Handbook of Attitudes and Attitude Change, edited by D.
Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna, 1–146. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ajzen, I., and T. J. Madden. 1986. “Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control.”
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22 (5): 453–474.
Alalwan, A. A., Y. K. Dwivedi, N. P. Rana, and M. D. Williams. 2016. “Consumer Adoption of Mobile Banking in Jordan: Examining
the Role of Usefulness, Ease of use, Perceived Risk and Self-Efficacy.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 29 (1):
118–139.
Ammous, S. 2016. “Blockchain Technology: What is it good for?” SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract = 2832751 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.
2832751.
Amoako-Gyampah, K., and A. F. Salam. 2004. “An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model in an ERP Implementation
Environment.” Information & Management 41 (6): 731–745.
Apte, S., and N. Petrovsky. 2016. “Will Blockchain Technology Revolutionize Excipient Supply Chain Management?” Journal of
Excipients and Food Chemicals 7 (3): 76–78.
Austin, T. X. 2017. “Chain Business Insights Releases First Benchmark Survey on Blockchain in Supply Chain.”
https://www.supplychaindive.com/press-release/20170524-chain-business-insights-releases-first-benchmark-survey-on-
blockchain-in-su/. Retreived on 12th January, 2018.
Bentler, P. M., and C. H. Chou. 1987. “Practical Issues in Structural Modeling.” Sociological Methods & Research 16 (1): 78–117.
Bertrand, M., and S. Bouchard. 2008. “Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to VR with People who are Favorable to its use.”
Journal of Cyber Therapy & Rehabilitation 1 (2): 200–210.
Bi, Zhuming. 2011. “Revisiting System Paradigms From the Viewpoint of Manufacturing Sustainability.” Sustainability 3 (12): 1323–
1340. doi:10.3390/su3091323.
Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Bröhl, C., J. Nelles, C. Brandl, A. Mertens and C. M. Schlick. 2016. “TAM Reloaded: a Technology Acceptance Model for Human-Robot
Cooperation in Production Systems.” In International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 97–103). Springer, Cham.
Calisir, F, C. Altin Gumussoy, and A. Bayram. 2009. “Predicting the Behavioral Intention to use Enterprise Resource Planning
Systems: An Exploratory Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model.” Management Research News 32 (7): 597–613.
doi:10.1108/01409170910965215.
Camerinelli, E. 2016. “Blockchain in Supply Chain.” Accessed January 3, 2018. https://www.finextra.com/blogposting/12597/blockchain-
in-the-supply-chain.
Carmines, E. G., and J. P. McIver. 1981. “Analyzing Models with Unobserved Variables: Analysis of Covariance Structures.” In Social
Measurement: Current Issues, edited by G. W. Bohrnstedt, and E. F. Borgatta, 65–115. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Carr Jr, V. H. 1999. “Technology Adoption and Diffusion.” The Learning Center for Interactive Technology. Accessed January 2, 2018
http://tlc.nlm.nih.gov/resources/publications/sourcebook/adoptiondiffusion.html.
Chai, L., and P. A. Pavlou. 2004. “From “Ancient” to “Modern”: a Cross-Cultural Investigation of Electronic Commerce Adoption in
Greece and the United States.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 17 (6): 416–423.
Chaouali, W. 2016. “Once a User, Always a User: Enablers and Inhibitors of Continuance Intention of Mobile Social Networking Sites.”
Telematics and Informatics 33 (4): 1022–1033.
Chen, S. C., and H. H. Chen. 2008. “The Influence of Technology Readiness on the Theory of Planned Behavior with Self-Service
Technologies.” In Proceedings of WMSCI. The 12th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 6(1), pp.
85-90.
Chen, S., R. Shi, Z. Ren, J. Yan, Y. Shi, and J. Zhang. 2017. “A blockchain-based supply chain quality management framework.” In 2017
IEEE 14th International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE) (pp. 172–176). IEEE.
Cho, Y. C. 2011. “Assessing User Attitudes Toward Mobile Commerce in the US vs. Korea: Implications for m-Commerce CRM.”
Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER) 6 (2): 91–102.
Choi, T., S. Liu, K. Pang, and P. Chow. 2008. “Shopping Behaviors of Individual Tourists From the Chinese Mainland to Hong Kong.”
Tourism Management 29 (4): 811–820.
Churchill Jr, G. A. 1979. “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.” Journal of Marketing Research 16:
64–73.
Cohn, J. M., P. G. Finn, S. P. Nair, S. B. Panikkar, and V. S. Pureswaran. 2017. US Patent 15/138,619.
Cooper, R. B., and R. W. Zmud. 1990. “Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach.”
Management Science 36 (2): 123–139.
Craighead, C. W., J. Blackhurst, M. J. Rungtusanatham, and R. B. Handfield. 2007. “The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design
Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities.” Decision Sciences 38 (1): 131–156. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.x.
Crosby, M., P. Pattanayak, S. Verma, and V. Kalyanaraman. 2016. “Blockchain Technology: Beyond bit Coin.” Applied Innovation 2:
6–10.
Dabholkar, P. A. 1996. “Consumer Evaluations of new Technology-Based Self-Service Options: an Investigation of Alternative Models
of Service Quality.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (1): 29–51.
Davidson, Sinclair, Primavera De Filippi, and Jason Potts. 2016. “Economics of Blockchain.” Accessed February 11, 2018. SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract = 2744751 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.2744751.
 International Journal of Production Research 2029

Davis, F. D. 1985. “A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results.”
Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, F. D. 1989. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13
(3): 318–340. doi:10.2307/249008.
Davis, F. D. 1993. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts.”
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38 (3): 475–487.
Davis, F. D., R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw. 1989. “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: a Comparison of two Theoretical
Models.” Management Science 35 (8): 982–1003.
DeCovny, S. 2015. “Chips Off the Old Blockchain.” CFA Institute Magazine 26 (6): 24–25.
Dholakia, R. R., and N. Dholakia. 2004. “Mobility and Markets: Emerging Outlines of m-Commerce.” Journal of Business Research 57
(12): 1391–1396.
Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Farooq, S., and C. O’Brien. 2012. “A Technology Selection Framework for Integrating Manufacturing Within a Supply Chain.”
International Journal of Production Research 50 (11): 2987–3010.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief. Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley. 6.
Folkinshteyn, D., and M. Lennon. 2016. “Braving Bitcoin: A Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Analysis.” Journal of Information
Technology Case and Application Research 18 (4): 220–249. doi:10.1080/15228053.2016.1275242.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unob-Servable Variables and Measurement Error.”
Journal of Marketing Research (JMR 18: 39–50.
Francisco, K., and D. Swanson. 2018. “The Supply Chain Has No Clothes: Technology Adoption of Blockchain for Supply Chain
Transparency.” Logistics 2 (1): 1–13.
Froystad, P., and J. Holm. 2016. “Blockchain: Powering the Internet of Value.” EVRY Labs.
Gamal Aboelmaged, M. 2010. “Predicting e-Procurement Adoption in a Developing Country: an Empirical Integration of Technology
Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behaviour.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 110 (3): 392–414.
Gao, L., and X. Bai. 2014. “A Unified Perspective on the Factors Influencing Consumer Acceptance of Internet of Things Technology.”
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 26 (2): 211–231.
Gaskin, J., and J. Lim. 2016. “Master Validity Tool”, AMOS Plugin. Gaskination’s StatWiki.
Gefen, D., E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub. 2003. “Inexperience and Experience with Online Stores: The Importance of TAM and Trust.”
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50 (3): 307–321.
Gefen, D., D. W. Straub, and M. C. Boudreau. 2000. “Structural Equation Modeling Techniques and Regression: Guidelines for Research
Practice.” Communications of the AIS 1 (7): 1–78.
George, J. F. 2004. “The Theory of Planned Behavior and Internet Purchasing.” Internet Research 14 (3): 198–212.
Godoe, P., and T. Johansen. 2012. “Understanding Adoption of New Technologies: Technology Readiness and Technology Acceptance
as an Integrated Concept.” Journal of European Psychology Students 3 (1): 38–52.
Gong, M., Y. Xu, and Y. Yu. 2004. “An Enhanced Technology Acceptance Model for web-Based Learning.” Journal of Information
Systems Education 15 (4): 365–374.
Gumussoy, C. A., F. Calisir, and A. Bayram. 2007, December. “Understanding the Behavioral Intention to use ERP Systems: An Extended
Technology Acceptance Model.” In Industrial engineering and engineering management, 2007 IEEE international conference, pp.
2024–2028.
Gunasekaran, A., K. Lai, and T. Edwin Cheng. 2008. “Responsive Supply Chain: A Competitive Strategy in a Networked Economy.”
Omega, 36 (Special Issue on Logistics: New Perspectives and Challenges) 549–564. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2006.12.002.
Guriting, P., and N. Oly Ndubisi. 2006. “Borneo Online Banking: Evaluating Customer Perceptions and Behavioural Intention.”
Management Research News 29 (1/2): 6–15.
Hair, J. F., R. F. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
Hair, J., W. Black, B. Y. A. Babin, R. Anderson, and R. Tatham. 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis. A Global Perspective. New Delhi:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haoyan, W., L. Zhijie, K. Brian, M. Zina Ben, J. Wassick, and J. Tazelaar. 2017. “A Distributed Ledger for Supply Chain Physical
Distribution Visibility.” Information 8 (4): 2078–2489. doi:10.3390/info8040137.
Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics. 2009a. “The use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing.”
Advances in International Marketing 20: 277–320.
Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics. 2009b. “The use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing.”
In New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing. Vol. 20., edited by P. N. Ghauri, and R. R.
Sinkovics, 277–319. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ho, S. H., and Y. Y. Ko. 2008. “Effects of Self-Service Technology on Customer Value and Customer Readiness: The Case of Internet
Banking.” Internet Research 18 (4): 427–446.
Hofmann, E., U. M. Strewe, and N. Bosia. 2018. Supply Chain Finance and Blockchain Technology. Heidelberg: Springer International.
Holland, M., C. Nigischer, and J. Stjepandic. 2017. “Copyright Protection in Additive Manufacturing with Blockchain Approach.”
Accessed December 25, 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Josip_Stjepandic/publication/318277458_Copyright_
2030 S. Kamble et al.

Protection_in_Additive_Manufacturing_with_Blockchain_Approach/links/59e88779458515c363133a18/Copyright-Protection-in
-Additive-Manufacturing-with-Blockchain-Approach.pdf.
Howell, D. W. 2016. “Social Media Site Use and the Technology Acceptance Model: Social Media Sites and Organization Success.”
Doctoral dissertation, Capella University.
Hsu, Meng H., Chao M. Chiu, and Teresa L. Ju. 2004. “Determinants of Continued use of the WWW: an Integration of two Theoretical
Models.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 104 (9): 766–775. doi:10.1108/02635570410567757.
Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New
Alternatives.” SEM 6 (1): 1–55.
Huckle, S., R. Bhattacharya, M. White, and N. Beloff. 2016. “Internet of Things, Blockchain and Shared Economy Applications.”
Procedia Computer Science 98: 461–466.
Hundy, B. B., and D. J. Hamblin. 1988. “Risk and Assessment of Investment in new Technology.” The International Journal of Production
Research 26 (11): 1799–1810.
Illia, A., T. Ngniatedema, and Z. Huang. 2015. “A Conceptual Model for Mobile Banking Adoption.” Journal of Management Information
and Decision Sciences 18 (1): 111–122.
Issa, I., and U. Hamm. 2017. “Adoption of Organic Farming as an Opportunity for Syrian Farmers of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables: An
Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Structural Equation Modelling.” Sustainability 9 (11): 1–22.
Ivanov, D., A. Dolgui, and B. Sokolov. 2018. “The Impact of Digital Technology and Industry 4.0 on the Ripple Effect and Supply Chain
Risk Analytics.” International Journal of Production Research 25: 1–18.
Jeschke, S., C. Brecher, T. Meisen, D. Özdemir, and T. Eschert. 2017. “Industrial Internet of Things and Cyber Manufacturing Systems.”
In Industrial Internet of Things, 3–19. Cham: Springer.
Joshi, N. 2017. “Blockchain Meets Industry 4.0-What Happened Next?” https://www.allerin.com/blog/5659-2.
Kim, D. J., D. L. Ferrin, and H. R. Rao. 2008. “A Trust-Based Consumer Decision-Making Model in Electronic Commerce: The Role of
Trust, Perceived Risk, and Their Antecedents.” Decision Support Systems 44 (2): 544–564.
Kim, H., and M. Laskowski. 2016. Towards an Ontology-Driven Blockchain Design for Supply Chain Provenance.” Accessed February
14, 2018. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract = 2828369 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.2828369.
Kleijnen, M., M. Wetzels, and K. De Ruyter. 2004. “Consumer Acceptance of Wireless Finance.” Journal of Financial Services Marketing
8 (3): 206–217.
Korpela, K., J. Hallikas, and T. Dahlberg. 2017. “Digital Supply Chain Transformation Toward Blockchain Integration.”In Proceedings
of the 50th hawaii international conference on system sciences. doi:10.24251/HICSS.2017.506.
Koteska, B., E. Karafiloski, and A. Mishev. 2017. Blockchain Implementation Quality Challenges: A Literature. Accessed February 21,
2018. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1938/paper-kot.pdf.
Kshetri, N. 2018. “Blockchain’s Roles in Meeting key Supply Chain Management Objectives.” International Journal of Information
Management, 3980–3989. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.005.
Kumpajaya, A., and W. Dhewanto. 2015. “The Acceptance of Bitcoin in Indonesia: Extending TAM with IDT.” Journal of Business and
Management 4 (1): 28–38.
Kuo, K. M., C. F. Liu, and C. C. Ma. 2013. “An Investigation of the Effect of Nurses’ Technology Readiness on the Acceptance of Mobile
Electronic Medical Record Systems.” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 13 (1): 13–88.
Larasati, N., and P. I. Santosa. 2017. “Technology Readiness and Technology Acceptance Model in New Technology Implementation
Process in Low Technology SMEs. International Journal of Innovation.” Management and Technology 8 (2): 113–117.
Lee, M. S. 2009. “An Empirical Study About RFID Acceptance—Focus On The Employees in Korea.” International Journal for Business
Economy Finance Management Science 1 (2): 1539–1548.
Lee, Y., J. Lee, and Z. Lee. 2006. “Social Influence on Technology Acceptance Behavior: Self-Identity Theory Perspective.” DATA BASE
for Advances in Information Systems 37 (2&3): 60–75.
Liu, Y., H. Li, and C. Carlsson. 2010. “Factors Driving the Adoption of m-Learning: An Empirical Study.” Computers & Education 55
(3): 1211–1219.
Long, Y., J. Pan, Q. Zhang, and Y. Hao. 2017. “3D Printing Technology and its Impact on Chinese Manufacturing.” International Journal
of Production Research 55 (5): 1488–1497.
Ma, J., K. W. Hipel, M. L. Hanson, X. Cai, and Y. Liu. 2018. “An Analysis of Influencing Factors on Municipal Solid Waste Source-
Separated Collection Behavior in Guilin, China by Using the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Sustainable Cities And Society 37336–
37343. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.11.037.
Martins, C., T. Oliveira, and A. Popovič. 2014. “Understanding the Internet Banking Adoption: A Unified Theory of Acceptance
and use of Technology and Perceived Risk Application.” International Journal of Information Management 34 (1): 1–13.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.06.002.
Mathieson, K. 1991. “Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior.”
Information Systems Research 2 (3): 173–191.
Michael, R. 2017. “The Evolution of the Digital Supply Chain.” Logistics Management 2 (5): 22–28. Highlands Ranch, Co.
Moon, J. W., and Y. G. Kim. 2001. “Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web Context.” Information & Management 38 (4):
217–230.
 International Journal of Production Research 2031

Moons, I., and P. De Pelsmacker. 2015. “An Extended Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour to Predict the Usage Intention of the
Electric car: A Multi-Group Comparison.” Sustainability 7 (5): 6212–6245.
Mougayar, W. 2016. The Business Blockchain: Promise, Practice, and Application of the Next Internet Technology. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Mthethwa, S. 2016. “The Analysis of the Blockchain Technology and Challenges Hampering Its Adoption.” World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology, International Science Index, Computer and Information Engineering 10 (12): 1937–1948.
Nakasumi, M. 2017. “Information Sharing for Supply Chain Management Based on Block Chain Technology.” In Business informatics
(CBI), 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 140-149). IEEE.
Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1978. “Psychometric Theory.”
Omran, Y., M. Henke, R. Heines, and E. Hofmann. 2017. “Blockchain-Driven Supply Chain Finance: Towards a Conceptual Framework
from a Buyer Perspective.” IPSERA 2017, p. 1-15.
Oosterhuis, M., T. Van Der Vaart, and E. Molleman. 2011. “Perceptions of Technology Uncertainty and the Consequences for Performance
in Buyer-Supplier Relationships.” International Journal of Production Research 49 (20): 6155–6173.
Oppenheim, A. N. 1966. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. London: Heineman.
Oye, N. D., A. N. Iahad, and N. A. Rahim. 2012. “Acceptance and Usage of ICT by University Academicians Using UTAUT Model: a
Case Study of University of Port Harcourt Nigeria.” Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences 3 (1):
81–89.
Pallant, J. F. 2000. “Development and Evaluation of a Scale to Measure Perceived Control of Internal States.” Journal of Personality
Assessment 75 (2): 308–337.
Parasuraman, A. 1999. Rockbridge Associates Inc. Technology Readiness Index: Instructions for Use in a Survey. Washington, DC:
Rockbridge Associates Inc.
Parasuraman, A. 2000. “Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace new Technologies.”
Journal of Service Research 2 (4): 307–320.
Parasuraman, A., and C. L. Colby. 2001. Techno-ready Marketing, How and Why Your Customers Adopt Technology. New York, NY: The
Free Press.
Pattansheti, M., S. S. Kamble, S. M. Dhume, and R. D. Raut. 2016. “Development, Measurement and Validation of an Integrated Technol-
ogy Readiness Acceptance and Planned Behaviour Model for Indian Mobile Banking Industry.” International Journal of Business
Information Systems 22 (3): 316–342.
Pavlou, P. A., and M. Fygenson. 2006. “Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce Adoption: An Extension of the Theory of
Planned Behavior.” MIS Quarterly 30 (1): 115–143.
Pereira, J. V. 2009. “The new Supply Chain’s Frontier: Information Management.” International Journal of Information Management 29
(5): 372–379.
Peters, G. W., and E. Panayi. 2016. “Understanding Modern Banking Ledgers Through Blockchain Technologies: Future of Transaction
Processing and Smart Contracts on the Internet of Money.” In Banking Beyond Banks and Money, 239–278. Cham: Springer.
Pilkington, M. 2016. “Blockchain Technology: Principles and Applications.” In Research Handbook on Digital Transformations, edited
by F. Xavier Olleros, and Majlinda Zhegu, 1–38. Glos: Edward Elgar. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract = 2662660.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical
Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903.
Rajan, C. A., and R. Baral. 2015. “Adoption of ERP System: An Empirical Study of Factors Influencing the Usage of ERP and its Impact
on end User.” IIMB Management Review 27 (2): 105–117.
Ranganathan, C., T. S. Teo, and J. Dhaliwal. 2011. “Web-enabled Supply Chain Management: Key Antecedents and Performance
Impacts.” International Journal of Information Management 31 (6): 533–545.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. “Diffusion of Innovations: Modifications of a Model for Telecommunications.” In Die Diffusion von Innovationen
in der Telekommunikation, 25–38. Berlin: Springer.
Ryans, A. B. 1974. “Estimating Consumer Preferences for a new Durable Brand in an Established Product Class.” Journal of Marketing
Research 11: 434–443.
Sadouskaya, K. 2017. “Adoption of Blockchain Technology in Supply Chain and Logistic.” Thesis. https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/
handle/10024/126096/Adoption%20of%20Blockchain%20Technology%20in%20Supply%20Chain%20and%20Logistics.pdf?
sequence = 1.
Safa, N. S., M. Sookhak, R. Von Solms, S. Furnell, N. A. Ghani, and T. Herawan. 2015. “Information Security Conscious Care Behaviour
Formation in Organizations.” Computers & Security 53: 65–78.
Samaradiwakara, G. D. M. N., and C. G. Gunawardena. 2014. “Comparison of Existing Technology Acceptance Theories and Models to
Suggest a Well Improved Theory/Model.” International Technical Sciences Journal 21: 36.
Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill. 2003. Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Sentosa, I., and N. K. N Mat. 2012. “Examining a Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in
Internet Purchasing Using Structural Equation Modeling.” Researchers World 3 (Part 2): 62–77.
Shanley, A. 2017. “Real-Time Logistics: Internet of Things, Advanced Analytics, and Blockchain Solutions Such as Smart Contracts
Promise to Give Manufacturers More Control Over Products and Supply Chains.” Biopharm International 9: 47–58.
2032 S. Kamble et al.

Sharma, R., and R. Mishra. 2014. “A Review of Evolution of Theories and Models of Technology Adoption.” Indore Management Journal
6 (2): 17–29.
Shih, B. Y., C. Y. Chen, and C. L. Chen. 2012. “An Enhanced Acceptance Model for Exploring User Intention Towards Virtual Reality
Environment: Partial Least Squares (PLS) Statistical Method.” International Journal of Physical Sciences 7 (5): 776–786.
Sideridis, G., P. Simos, A. Papanicolaou, and J. Fletcher. 2014. “Using Structural Equation Modeling to Assess Functional Connectivity
in the Brain Power and Sample Size Consideration.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 74 (5): 733–758.
Son, M., and K. Han. 2011. “Beyond the Technology Adoption: Technology Readiness Effects on Post-Adoption Behavior.” Journal of
Business Research 64 (11): 1178–1182.
Sreehari, P., M. Nandakishore, G. Krishna, J. Jacob, and V. S. Shibu. 2017. “Smart Will Converting the Legal Testament Into a Smart Con-
tract.” Networks & Advances in Computational Technologies (NetACT) 1: 203–207. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?
tp = &arnumber = 8076767&isnumber = 8076728.
Sternad, S., and S. Bobek. 2013. “Impacts of TAM-Based External Factors on ERP Acceptance.” Procedia Technology 9: 33–42.
doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.004.
Szajna, B. 1994. “Software Evaluation and Choice: Predictive Validation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument.” MIS Quarterly 18:
319–324.
Szajna, B. 1996. “Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model.” Management Science 42 (1): 85–92.
Tapscott, D., and A. Tapscott. 2017. “How Blockchain Will Change Organizations.” MIT Sloan Management Review 58 (2): 10–13.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1875399260?accountid = 49672https://search.proquest.com/docview/1875399260?accoun
tid = 49672.
Taylor, S., and P. A. Todd. 1995. “Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models.” Information Systems
Research 6 (2): 144–176.
Thompson, R. L., C. A. Higgins, and J. M. Howell. 1991. “Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization.” MIS
Quarterly 15: 125–143.
Tian, F. 2016. “An Agri-Food Supply Chain Traceability System for China Based on RFID & Blockchain Technology.” Service Systems
and Service Management (ICSSSM), 13th International Conference on (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
Tian, F. 2017, June. “A Supply Chain Traceability System for Food Safety Based on HACCP, Blockchain & Internet of Things.” Service
Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM), 2017 International Conference on (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
Toyoda, K., P. T. Mathiopoulos, I. Sasase, and T. Ohtsuki. 2017. “A Novel Blockchain-Based Product Ownership Management System
(POMS) for Anti-Counterfeits in the Post Supply Chain.” IEEE Access 5: 17465–17477.
Tsikriktsis, N. 2004. “A Technology Readiness-Based Taxonomy of Customers: A Replication and Extension.” Journal of Service
Research 7 (1): 42–52.
Underwood, S. 2016. “Blockchain Beyond Bitcoin.” Communications of the ACM 59 (11): 15–17. doi:10.1145/2994581.
Upadhyay, P., and M. Chattopadhyay. 2015. “Examining Mobile Based Payment Services Adoption Issues: A new Approach Using
Hierarchical Clustering and Self-Organizing Maps.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 28 (4): 490–507.
Venkatesh, V. 2000. “Determinants of Perceived Ease of use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion Into the Technology
Acceptance Model.” Information Systems Research 11 (4): 342–365.
Venkatesh, V., and F. D. Davis. 2000. “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies.”
Management Science 46 (2): 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., and M. G. Morris. 2000. “Why Don’t men Ever Stop to ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in
Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior.” MIS Quarterly 24: 115–139.
Venkatesh, V., M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis. 2003. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View.”
MIS Quarterly 27: 425–478.
Venkatesh, V., J. Y. Thong, and X. Xu. 2012. “Consumer Acceptance and use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory
of Acceptance and use of Technology.” MIS Quarterly 36: 157–178.
Venkatesh, V., and X. Zhang. 2010. “Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: U.S. Vs. China.” Journal of Global
Information Technology Management 13 (1): 5–27.
Verma, P., and N. Sinha. 2018. “Integrating Perceived Economic Wellbeing to Technology Acceptance Model: The Case of Mobile Based
Agricultural Extension Service.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 126: 207–216.
Walczuch, R., J. Lemmink, and S. Streukens. 2007. “The Effect of Service Employees’ Technology Readiness on Technology
Acceptance.” Information & Management 44 (2): 206–215.
Wallace, R. O., and C. J. Mellor. 1988. “Nonresponse Bias in Mail Accounting Surveys: a Pedagogical Note.” The British Accounting
Review 20 (2): 131–139.
Wang, Y. S., Y. M. Wang, H. H. Lin, and T. I. Tang. 2003. “Determinants of User Acceptance of Internet Banking: an Empirical Study.”
International Journal of Service Industry Management 14 (5): 501–519.
Williams, M. D., Y. K. Dwivedi, B. Lal, and A. Schwarz. 2009. “Contemporary Trends and Issues in IT Adoption and Diffusion Research.”
Journal of Information Technology 24 (1): 1–10.
Williamson, E. A., D. K. Harrison, and M. Jordan. 2004. “Information Systems Development Within Supply Chain Management.”
International Journal of Information Management 24 (5): 375–385.
 International Journal of Production Research 2033

Willis, G., S. E. Genchev, and H. Chen. 2016. “Supply Chain Learning, Integration, and Flexibility Performance: an Empirical Study in
India.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 27 (3): 755–769. doi:10.1108/IJLM-03-2014-0042.
Wipro. 2017. “Wipro Joins Hyperledger to Catalyze Collaboration on Enterprise-Grade Blockchain Solutions.” Accessed December 21,
2017. https://www.wipro.com/newsroom/press-releases/2017/wipro-joins-hyperledger-to-catalyze-collaboration-on-enterprise-
grade-blockchain-solutions/.
Wolf, E. J., K. M. Harrington, S. L. Clark, and M. W. Miller. 2013. “Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models an
Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 73 (6): 913–934.
Wu, L., and J. L. Chen. 2005. “An Extension of Trust and TAM Model with TPB in the Initial Adoption of on-Line tax: an Empirical
Study.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 62 (6): 784–808.
Wu, H., Z. Li, B. King, Z. Ben Miled, J. Wassick, and J. Tazelaar. 2017. “A Distributed Ledger for Supply Chain Physical Distribution
Visibility.” Information 8 (4): 1–18.
Xie, Q., W. Song, X. Peng, and M. Shabbir. 2017. “Predictors for e-Government Adoption: Integrating TAM, TPB, Trust and Perceived
Risk.” The Electronic Library 35 (1): 2–20.
Xu, L. D., E. L. Xu, and L. Li. 2018. “Industry 4.0: State of the art and Future Trends.” International Journal of Production Research 56
(8): 2941–2962.
Yang, Z., J. Sun, Y. Zhang, and Y. Wang. 2015. “Understanding SaaS Adoption From the Perspective of Organizational Users: A Tripod
Readiness Model.” Computers in Human Behavior 45: 254–264.
Yi, Y., L. L. Tung, and Z. Wu. 2003. “Incorporating Technology Readiness (TR) into TAM: Are Individual Traits Important to Understand
Technology Acceptance?” DIGIT 2003 proceedings, p.2.
Ying, W., S. Jia, and W. Du. 2018. “Digital Enablement of Blockchain: Evidence From HNA Group.” International Journal of Information
Management 39: 1–4.
Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis
Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.