2. Literature Review
2.1. Automatic Warehousing Systems
2.2. Technology Adoption
3. Research Model and Hypotheses
3.1. Research Model
3.2. Technology Context
3.3. Organization Context
3.4. Environment Context
4. Research Methodology
4.2. Data Collection
5. Data Analysis
5.1. Reliability and Validity
5.2. Structural Model Analysis and Hypotheses Test
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. List of the Items by Construct
- RA1: We believe that AWS allows us to accomplish specific tasks more quickly.
- RA2: We believe that AWS allows us to enhance our productivity.
- RA3: We believe that AWS allows us to save time in searching for resources.
- RA4: We believe that AWS allows us to improve our job performance.
- CO1: We believe that the cost of AWS is high for our company.
- CO2: We believe that the amount of money and time of training for AWS applications is high for our company.
- CO3: We believe that the maintenance and support fees for AWS applications are high for our company.
- OP1: Our firm can quickly modify products to meet our major customer’s requirements.
- OP2: Our firm can quickly introduce new products into the market.
- OP3: Our firm can respond to changes in market demand.
- OP4: Our firm has an outstanding on-time delivery record for our major customers.
- OP5: Our firm provides a high level of customer service to our major customers.
- TT1: It is easy for our customers to switch to another firm for similar products without much difficulty.
- TT2: The rivalry among firms in the industry my firm is operating in is very intense.
- TT3: There are many products in the market which are different from ours but perform the same functions.
- BPI1: Important business partners have made requests to us to use AWS.
- BPI2: Major business partners have recommended that we use AWS.
- BPI3: Important business partners have recommended that we use AWS.
- BPI4: Major business partners have requested that we use AWS.
- FS1: Multi-established (Y/N)
- FS2: Establishments outside of country (Y/N)
- SI1: Assets
- SI2: Number of employees
- SI3: Annual sales
- AA1: I would like to adopt AWS in the next (n) months.
- AA2: I would like to adopt AWS in the next (n) months.
- AA3: I would like to adopt AWS in the next (n) months.
- Hristov, I.; Chirico, A.; Appolloni, A. Sustainability Value Creation, Survival, and Growth of the Company: A Critical Perspective in the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC). Sustainability 2019, 11, 2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kovacs, G.; Kot, S. New logistics and production trends as the effect of global economy changes. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 14, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afonasova, M.A.; Panfilova, E.E.; Galichkina, M.A.; Ślusarczyk, B. Digitalization in economy and innovation: The effect on social and economic processes. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 19, 22–32. [Google Scholar]
- Fujii, H.; Managi, S. Decomposition analysis of sustainable green technology inventions in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 139, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chih-Cheng, C.; Chen, C.-W.; Tung, Y.-C. Exploring the Consumer Behavior of Intention to Purchase Green Products in Belt and Road Countries: An Empirical Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Koster, R.; Le-Duc, T.; Roodbergen, K.J. Design and control of warehouse order picking: A literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 182, 481–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, S.; Tseng, M.-L.; Yang, C.; Huisingh, D. Trends in sustainable logistics in major cities in China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 712, 136381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.S.; Li, H.T.; Li, C.R.; Zhang, D.Z. Factors affecting hotels’ adoption of mobile reservation systems: A TOE framework. Tour. Manag. 2016, 53, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martelo-Landroguez, S.; Albort-Morant, G.; Leal-Rodriguez, A.L.; Ribeiro-Soriano, B. The Effect of Absorptive Capacity on Green Customer Capital under an Organizational Unlearning Context. Sustainability 2018, 10, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randhawa, S.U.; Shroff, R. Simulation-based design evaluation of unit load automated storage/retrieval systems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 1995, 28, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasili, M.; Vasili, M.; Raminfar, R. A closed form model for travel time of split-platform automated storage and retrieval system equipped with two input/output stations. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Modeling, Optimization & Simulation, Bordeaux, France, 6–8 June 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ashayeri, J.; Heuts, R.M.J.; Beekhof, M.; Wilhelm, M.R. On the Determination of Class-Based Storage Assignments in an AS/RS Having Two I/O Locations; Progress in Material Handling Research; Material Handling Institute: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2001; pp. 27–41. [Google Scholar]
- Lerher, T. Design and evaluation of the class-based multi-aisle AS/RS. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2006, 5, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; De Koster, R. Sequencing heuristics for storing and retrieving unit loads in 3D compact automated warehousing systems. IIE Trans. 2012, 44, 69–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, Y.; Chae, J. Free balancing for a shuttle-based storage and retrieval system. Simul. Model. Pr. Theory 2018, 82, 12–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozer, Y.A.; White, J.A. Travel-Time Models for Automated Storage/Retrieval Systems. IIE Trans. 1984, 16, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Koster, R.; Le-Duc, T.; Yugang, Y. Optimal storage rack design for a 3-dimensional compact AS/RS. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2008, 46, 1495–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekren, B.; Sari, Z.; Lerher, T. Warehouse Design under Class-Based Storage Policy of Shuttle-Based Storage and Retrieval System. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015, 48, 1152–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, T.; Martins, R.; Sarker, S.; Thomas, M.; Popovič, A. Understanding SaaS adoption: The moderating impact of the environment context. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, D.; Zhang, M.; Yu, Q.; Tu, Y. Developing a framework to identify barriers of Green technology adoption for enterprises. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 143, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, K.; Kraemer, K.L. Post-Adoption Variations in Usage and Value of E-Business by Organizations: Cross-Country Evidence from the Retail Industry. Inf. Syst. Res. 2005, 16, 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jean, R.-J.B.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Kim, D. The impact of technological, organizational and environmental characteristics on electronic collaboration and relationship performance in international customer–supplier relationships. Inf. Manag. 2014, 51, 854–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboelmaged, M. Predicting e-readiness at firm-level: An analysis of technological, organizational and environmental (TOE) effects on e-maintenance readiness in manufacturing firms. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 639–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, T.S.; Lin, S.; Lai, K.-H. Adopters and non-adopters of e-procurement in Singapore: An empirical study. Omega 2009, 37, 972–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frambach, R.T.; Schillewaert, N. Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. J. Bus. Res. 2002, 55, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thong, J.Y.L.; Yap, C. CEO characteristics, organizational characteristics and information technology adoption in small businesses. Omega 1995, 23, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, C.; Lim, D.; Park, C. Factors affecting adoption of smart farms: The case of Korea. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 108, 106309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterjee, S.; Kar, A.K. Why do small and medium enterprises use social media marketing and what is the impact: Empirical insights from India. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 53, 102103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz-Jesus, F.; Pinheiro, A.; Oliveira, T. Understanding CRM adoption stages: Empirical analysis building on the TOE framework. Comput. Ind. 2019, 109, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Geertshuis, S.; Grainger, R. Understanding academics’ adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 2020, 151, 103857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Premkumar, G.; Roberts, M. Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses. Omega 1999, 27, 467–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingrid, M.; Patrick, D.P. An Extended Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour to Predict the Usage Intention of the Electric Car: A Multi-Group Comparison. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6212–6245. [Google Scholar]
- Park, E.; Lim, J.; Cho, Y. Understanding the Emergence and Social Acceptance of Electric Vehicles as Next-Generation Models for the Automobile Industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaee, Z. Supply Chain Management and Business Sustainability Synergy: A Theoretical and Integrated Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Kim, S.-J. Curvilinear Relationship between Corporate Innovation and Environmental Sustainability. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bian, J.; Liao, Y.; Wang, Y.-Y.; Tao, F. Analysis of firm CSR strategies. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Li, K.W.; Li, B.-Y.; Huang, J.; Tang, J. Impact of product-design strategies on the operations of a closed-loop supply chain. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2019, 124, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.-X.; Liu, Z.; Li, K.W.; Huang, J.; Chen, J. Cooperative game approaches to coordinating a three-echelon closed-loop supply chain with fairness concerns. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 212, 92–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Yi, L.; Shi, V.; Chen, X. Supplier encroachment strategy in the presence of retail strategic inventory: Centralization or decentralization? Omega 2020, 102213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Age||Younger than 30||52.0%|
|Education Degree||Below junior college||4.1%|
|Working Years||Below 5 years||34.7%|
CR = 0.896; AVE = 0.745
CR = 0.953; AVE = 0.843
|Perceived relative advantage|
CR = 0.932; AVE = 0.773
CR = 0.903; AVE = 0.652
CR = 0.927; AVE = 0.809
|Business partner influence|
CR = 0.953; AVE = 0.835
CR = 0.775; AVE = 0.533
|Hypothesis||β Value||t Value||p Value||Support?|
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).