Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-12
Digital Transformation of the Supply Chain: An Empirical Assessment of Employee Perceptions of Technology Acceptance in Private Sector Companies in India
The modern business landscape is undergoing a paradigm shift driven by the rapid advancement of emerging digital technologies. Among the sectors profoundly impacted by this transformation, supply chain management stands out as a critical area requiring technological integration to enhance efficiency, agility, and competitiveness. To sustain India’s fast-paced economic growth, businesses must accelerate the adoption of digital technologies. However, as technology adoption is deeply intertwined with human skills, attitudes, and perceptions, understanding employee perspectives is essential for successful implementation. This study examines employee perceptions of digital technology adoption in the supply chain by employing an extended model of the technology acceptance model. Data were collected from 190 respondents working in private sector companies in South India and analysed using structural equation modelling via Smart PLS. The results indicate that perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness significantly influence behavioural intention and the actual use of digital technology. Additionally, the study establishes a strong positive relationship between employee attitude and actual technology use. Beyond contributing to the theoretical understanding of employee psychological traits in technology adoption, the findings offer practical insights for policymakers and business leaders. By identifying key determinants of digital technology acceptance, this study provides strategic guidance for organisations aiming to optimise technology integration within their supply chains.
AgrawalR., YadavV. S., MajumdarA., KumarA., LuthraS., & Garza-ReyesJ. A. (2023). Opportunities for disruptive digital technologies to ensure circularity in supply Chain: A critical review of drivers, barriers and challenges. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 178, 109140. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cie.2023.109140
2.
AjzenI. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control (pp. 11–39). Springer.
3.
AjzenI. (2005). EBOOK: Attitudes, personality and behaviour. McGraw-Hill education.
4.
AjzenI., & FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
5.
ArmstrongJ. S., & OvertonT. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
6.
BagozziR. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254.
7.
Benatiya AndaloussiM. (2024). A bibliometric literature review of digital supply chain: Trends, insights, and future directions. Sage Open, 14(2), 21582440241240340.
8.
BharadwajA., El SawyO. A., PavlouP. A., & VenkatramanN. V. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482.
9.
Bondzie‐MicahV., QiguiS., ArkorfulV. E., LuguB. K., Bentum‐MicahG., & Ayi-BonteA. N. A. (2022). Predicting consumer intention to use electronic health service: An empirical structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(4), e2677.
10.
CalatayudA., ManganJ., & ChristopherM. (2019). The self-thinking supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(1), 22–38.
11.
CarminesE. G., & ZellerR. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Publications.
12.
ChaudharyP., & KateN. (2023). The coalescence effect: Understanding the impact of customer value proposition, perceived benefits and climate change sensitivities on electric vehicle adoption in India. Business Strategy & Development, 6(4), 843–858.
13.
ChaudharyP., SinghA., & SharmaS. (2022). Understanding the antecedents of omni-channel shopping by customers with reference to fashion category: The Indian millennials’ perspective. Young Consumers, 23(2), 304–320.
14.
ChawlaD., & JoshiH. (2023). Role of mediator in examining the influence of antecedents of mobile wallet adoption on attitude and intention. Global Business Review, 24(4), 609–625.
15.
ChenP. Y., & HwangG. J. (2019). An empirical examination of the effect of self-regulation and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) factors on the online learning behavioural intention of college students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(1), 79–95.
16.
ChenR. Y. (2018). A traceability chain algorithm for artificial neural networks using T–S fuzzy cognitive maps in blockchain. Future Generation Computer Systems, 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.09.077
17.
ChinW. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
18.
CohenR. J., & SwerdlikM. E. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
19.
CrittendenA. B., CrittendenV. L., & CrittendenW. F. (2019). The digitalization triumvirate: How incumbents survive. Business Horizons, 62(2), 259–266.
20.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
21.
DavisF. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
22.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 249008
23.
DubeyR. (2023). Unleashing the potential of digital technologies in emergency supply chain: The moderating effect of crisis leadership. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 123(1), 112–132.
24.
DubeyR., GunasekaranA., ChildeS. J., BlomeC., & PapadopoulosT. (2019). Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: Integrating institutional theory, resource‐based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management, 30(2), 341–361.
25.
DwivediY. K., RanaN. P., JeyarajA., ClementM., & WilliamsM. D. (2019). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21, 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y
26.
EnriqueD. V., LermanL. V., de SousaP. R., BenitezG. B., SantosF. M. B. C., & FrankA. G. (2022). Being digital and flexible to navigate the storm: How digital transformation enhances supply chain flexibility in turbulent environments. International Journal of Production Economics, 250(13), 108668.
27.
FathemaN., ShannonD., & RossM. (2015). Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 210–232.
28.
FlandingJ. P., GrabmanG. M., & CoxS. Q. (2018). Playbook to digital-era change leadership. In The technology takers: Leading change in the digital era (pp. 61–160). Emerald Publishing Limited.
29.
FornellC., & LarckerD. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
30.
GefenD., StraubD., & BoudreauM. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407
31.
GeorgeA., & KumarG. G. (2013). Antecedents of customer satisfaction in internet banking: Technology acceptance model (TAM) redefined. Global Business Review, 14(4), 627–638.
32.
GilbertS. S., ThakareN., RamanujapuramA., & AkkihalA. (2017). Assessing stability and performance of a digitally enabled supply chain: Retrospective of a pilot in Uttar Pradesh, India. Vaccine, 35(17), 2203–2208.
33.
González-RojasO., CorrealD., & CamargoM. (2016). ICT capabilities for supporting collaborative work on business processes within the digital content industry. Computers in Industry, 80, 16–29.
34.
GoswamiR. (2022). Factors influencing the adoption of electric vehicles in India: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, 14(4), 354–374.
35.
HairJ. F., HultG. T. M., RingleC., & SarstedtM. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications
36.
HairJ. F., HultG. T. M., RingleC. M., & SarstedtM. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
37.
HarmanH. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago press.
38.
HartleyJ. L., & SawayaW. J. (2019). Tortoise, not the hare: Digital transformation of supply chain business processes. Business Horizons, 62(6), 707–715.
39.
HencelerJ., RingleC. M., & SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
40.
HuL. T., & BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
41.
IvanovD., & DolguiA. (2021). A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks and resilience in the era of Industry 4.0. Production Planning & Control, 32(9), 775–788.
42.
JainN. K., BhaskarK., & JainS. (2022). What drives adoption intention of electric vehicles in India? An integrated UTAUT model with environmental concerns, perceived risk and government support. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 42(1), 100730.
43.
JenaS. K., & SinghalD. (2023). Optimising the competitive sustainable process and pricing decision of digital supply chain: A power-balance perspective. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 177, 109054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109054
44.
KambleS. S., GunasekaranA., & SharmaR. (2020). Modeling the blockchain enabled traceability in agriculture supply chain. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 101967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.023
45.
KimD., CavusgilS. T., & CalantoneR. J. (2006). Information system innovations and supply chain management: Channel relationships and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 40–54.
46.
KumarV. R., LallA., & ManeT. (2017). Extending the TAM model: Intention of management students to use mobile banking: Evidence from India. Global Business Review, 18(1), 238–249.
47.
LuQ., & XuX. (2017). Adaptable blockchainbased systems: A case study for product traceability. IEEE Software, 34(6), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2017.4121227
48.
MaheshwariP., & KambleS. (2022). The application of supply chain digital twin to measure optimal inventory policy. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(10), 2324–2329.
49.
MomaniA. M. (2020). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A new approach in technology acceptance. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge, Development (IJSKD), 12(3), 79–98.
50.
MorganT. R., Richey JrR. G., & EllingerA. E. (2018). Supplier transparency: Scale development and validation. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(3), 959–984.
51.
NasiriM., UkkoJ., SaunilaM., & RantalaT. (2020). Managing the digital supply chain: The role of smart technologies. Technovation, 96, 102121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102121
52.
NayalK., RautR. D., YadavV. S., PriyadarshineeP., & NarkhedeB. E. (2022). The impact of sustainable development strategy on sustainable supply chain firm performance in the digital transformation era. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 845–859.
53.
NguyenD. T., AdulyasakY., CordeauJ. F., & PonceS. I. (2022). Data-driven operations and supply chain management: Established research clusters from 2000 to early 2020. International Journal of Production Research, 60(17), 5407–5431.
54.
PatilA., ShardeoV., DwivediA., & PaulS. K. (2023). An integrated framework for digitalization of humanitarian supply chains in post COVID-19 era. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 87, 103574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103574
55.
PrasannaS., RangarajanV., KhanM., & AhmedK. A. (2021). Examining the factors influencing consumers’ choice for electric vehicles in India. International Journal of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, 13(3–4), 302–320
56.
PreindlR., NikolopoulosK., & LitsiouK. (2020, January). Transformation strategies for the supply chain: The impact of industry 4.0 and digital transformation. In Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 21(1), 26–34. Taylor & Francis.
57.
QueirozM. M., IvanovD., DolguiA., & Fosso WambaS. (2022). Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: Mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Annals of Operations Research, 319(1), 1159–1196.
58.
RafiqueH., AlmagrabiA. O., ShamimA., AnwarF., & BashirA. K. (2020). Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education, 145, 103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103732
59.
RigdonE. E. (2016). Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research. European Management Journal, 34(6), 598–605.
60.
RogersE. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). The Free Press.
61.
SchumackerR. E., & LomaxR. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press.
62.
ShalenderK., & SharmaN. (2021). Using extended theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to predict adoption intention of electric vehicles in India. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(1), 665–681.
63.
ShankarA., & KumariP. (2019). Exploring the enablers and inhibitors of electric vehicle adoption intention from sellers’ perspective in India: A view of the dual‐factor model. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 24(4), e1662.
64.
SinghP., SandhuI., & SinghA. I. (2023). Consumers’ Attitude toward electric vehicles in India: mapping psychological antecedents and consequences. Indian Journal of Marketing, 53(6), 8–27.
65.
SinghS., SharmaM., & DhirS. (2021). Modeling the effects of digital transformation in Indian manufacturing industry. Technology in Society, 67(6), 101763.
66.
SunH., & ZhangP. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(2), 53–78.
67.
TaylorS., & ToddP. A. (1995b). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 144–176.
68.
ThompsonR. L., HigginsC. A., & HowellJ. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125–143.
69.
TiwariS., WeeH. M., & DaryantoY. (2018). Big data analytics in supply chain management between 2010 and 2016: Insights to industries. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 115, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.11.017
70.
TornatzkyL. G., FleischerM., & ChakrabartiA. K. (1990). The processes of technological innovation (pp. 27–50). Lexington Books.
71.
VenkateshV., & BalaH. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Science, 39(2), 273–312.
72.
VenkateshV., & DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
73.
VenkateshV., MorrisM. G., DavisG. B., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
74.
VoorheesC. M., BradyM. K., CalantoneR., & RamirezE. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134.
75.
WangM., WangC. C., SepasgozarS., & ZlatanovaS. (2020). A systematic review of digital technology adoption in off-site construction: Current status and future direction towards industry 4.0. Buildings, 10(11), 204.
76.
WangY., HanJ. H., & Beynon-DaviesP. (2019). Understanding blockchain technology for future supply chains: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(1), 62–84.
77.
WolfE. J., HarringtonK. M., ClarkS. L., & MillerM. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934.
78.
WuJ., LiaoH., WangJ. W., & ChenT. (2019). The role of environmental concern in the public acceptance of autonomous electric vehicles: A survey from China. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 60(2), 37–46.
79.
YaghoubiN. M., & BahmaniE. (2010). Factors affecting the adoption of online banking: An integration of technology acceptance model and theory of planned behaviour. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(9), 159–165.
80.
ZhouL., XueS., & LiR. (2022). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore students’ intention to use an online education platform at a university in China. Sage Open, 12(1), 21582440221085259.
