A Qualitative Investigation of IoT Adoption for Operational Efficiency and Process Innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the adoption of the Internet of Things (IoT) as a transformative tool for enhancing operational efficiency and driving process innovation within organizations. By employing a qualitative research methodology, the study captures the experiences, perceptions, and insights of managers, engineers, and operational specialists involved in IoT implementation across diverse sectors, including manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, and energy. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and supplemented with relevant organizational documents to provide a comprehensive understanding of the adoption process. The findings reveal that IoT adoption fundamentally reshaped operational practices by providing real-time visibility, enabling proactive decision-making, fostering cross-functional collaboration, and supporting continuous process improvements. Participants highlighted that the integration of IoT facilitated predictive and evidence-based decision-making, reduced operational uncertainties, and enhanced coordination among previously siloed departments. Moreover, IoT acted as a catalyst for process innovation, encouraging organizations to experiment with workflows, redesign processes, and embed flexibility into operations. The study also identifies challenges associated with IoT adoption, including data overload, system integration complexities, resistance to change, and the need for new skills and organizational capabilities. Success in IoT adoption was found to be closely linked to human and organizational factors, such as leadership support, learning culture, workforce competence, and strategic alignment. Overall, the study underscores that IoT adoption is not merely a technological upgrade but a socio-technical transformation requiring sustained effort, adaptation, and alignment with organizational objectives. The insights from this research provide valuable guidance for practitioners seeking to leverage IoT for operational excellence and innovation, highlighting the interplay between technology, people, and processes in achieving meaningful organizational outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".