Assessment of the implementation of artificial intelligence technologies at an industrial enterprise in the context of Industry 5.0 (the case of Pakistani companies)

Digital economy: theory and practice
Authors:
Abstract:

It is considered that the degree of adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies by manufacturing enterprises in emerging economies depends mainly on their internal capabilities and culture, while the surrounding ecosystem is considered only as a background, and not as a measurable factor. The authors' research addresses this gap by developing and empirically testing a conceptual structural model based on nine hypotheses and eight constructs that links ecosystem networking, institutional and government support, digital infrastructure readiness, technological readiness, innovation culture, and dynamic opportunities with the introduction of AI and through it — with industrial innovation and competitiveness. The model combines the dynamic opportunity perspective, the institutional theory perspective, and the human-centered Industry 5.0 paradigm into a single ecosystem-level framework. At the same time, it is assumed that conditions at the ecosystem and infrastructure level form the internal readiness of the enterprise, which, in turn, encourages the introduction of AI and subsequent productivity. Primary survey data was collected from 182 managers from five manufacturing subsectors in Pakistan. Four of the nine hypotheses were confirmed: ecosystem connections were associated with technological readiness, digital infrastructure was associated with dynamic capabilities, institutional support was associated with an innovative culture, and the introduction of AI was closely related to indicators of competitiveness. Technological readiness and innovation culture did not demonstrate a reliable unique influence on decision-making, hypothetical deterrence from institutional support was not detected, and the two constructs — ecosystem connections and dynamic capabilities — were too correlated to be tested as independent predictors. The study provides one of the first tests of ecosystem and institutional prerequisites for assessing the implementation of AI using the example of South Asian industry at the enterprise level, reports on the limitations of measurement and allows formulating recommendations for managers in the field of industrial policy based on AI. Future research will focus on forming yet untested hypotheses using refined, abbreviated data to establish the direction of causal relationships between ecosystem conditions, AI adoption, and enterprise performance.

Funding:

The research was financially supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project “Strategic Management of the Intellectual Maturity of Industrial Ecosystems in the Data Economy: Methodology, Framework, and Toolkit” (Agreement No. 25-18-00978/; available online: https://rscf.ru/project/25-18-00978/).

  • References

    1. Dwivedi Y.K., Hughes L., Ismagilova E., Aarts G., Coombs K., Crick T. et al. (2021) Artificial  Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for  research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, art. no. 101994.  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002

    2. Brynjolfsson E., McAfee A. (2016) The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a  Time of Brilliant Technologies, 2nd ed., NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

    3. Khan M., Haleem A., Javaid M. (2023) Changes and improvements in Industry 5.0: A strategic  approach to overcome the challenges of Industry 4.0. Green Technologies and Sustainability, 1 (2), art.  no. 100020. DOI: 10.1016/j.grets.2023.100020

    4. Nahavandi S. (2019) Industry 5.0 – A Human-Centric Solution. Sustainability, 11 (16), art. no.  4371. DOI: 10.3390/su11164371

    5. Javaid M., Haleem A., Singh R.P., Suman R. (2022) Artificial Intelligence Applications for Industry 4.0: A Literature-Based Study. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management, 7 (1), 83–111.  DOI: 10.1142/S2424862221300040

    6. Chaerunnisa C., Hurriyati R., Hendrayati H., Dirgantari P.D. (2025) Effect of Strategic Planning,  Business Innovation, Digital Transformation, and Organisational Agility on Competitive Advantage of  Modern Service Companies in West Java. Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen Kesatuan, 13 (5), 4121–4138. DOI:  10.37641/jimkes.v13i5.3873

    7. Fosso Wamba S., Queiroz M.M., Pappas I.O., Sullivan Y. (2024) Artificial Intelligence Capability  and Firm Performance: A Sustainable Development Perspective by the Mediating Role of Data-Driven  Culture. Information Systems Frontiers, 26 (6), 2189–2203. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-023-10460-z

    8. Mikalef P., Gupta M. (2021) Artificial intelligence capability: Conceptualization, measurement  calibration, and empirical study of its effects on organizational creativity and firm performance. Information & Management, 58 (3), art. no. 103434. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2021.103434

    9. Hossain M.A., Agnihotri R., Rushan M.R.I., Rahman M.S., Sumi S.F. (2022) Marketing analytics capability, artificial intelligence adoption, and firms' competitive advantage: Evidence from the  manufacturing industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 106, 240–255. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.08.017

    10. Toorajipour R., Sohrabpour V., Nazarpour A., Oghazi P., Fischl M. (2021) Artificial intelligence in supply chain management: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 122,  502–517. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.009

    11. Neiroukh S., Emeagwali O.L., Aljuhmani H.Y. (2025) Artificial intelligence capability and organizational performance: Uncovering the mediating mechanisms of decision-making processes. Mana-  gement Decision, 63 (10), 3501–3532. DOI: 10.1108/md-10-2023-1946

    12. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and  Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147–160. DOI:  10.2307/2095101

    13. Raisch S., Krakowski S. (2021) Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46 (1), 192–210. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2018.0072

    14. Teece D.J. (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (13), 1319–1350. DOI: 10.1002/  smj.640

    15. Krakowski S., Luger J., Raisch S. (2023) Artificial intelligence and the changing sources of com-  petitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 44 (6), 1425–1452. DOI: 10.1002/smj.3387

    16. Wamba-Taguimdje S.-L., Fosso Wamba S., Kala Kamdjoug J.R., Tchatchouang Wanko C.E. (2020) Influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on firm performance: The business value of AI-based  transformation projects. Business Process Management Journal, 26 (7), 1893–1924. DOI: 10.1108/  BPMJ-10-2019-0411

    17. Barney J. (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Manage-  ment, 17 (1), 99–120. DOI: 10.1177/014920639101700108

    18. Babkin A.V., Liberman I.V., Klachek P.M. (2023) Industry 5.0 and intelligent economy: funda-  mentals of neuro-digital transformation of cyber social meta-ecosystems of high-tech industrial comp-  lexes. π-Economy, 16 (5), 8–21. DOI: 10.18721/JE.16501

    19. Babkin A.V., Mikhailov P.A., Shkarupeta E.V., Chen Leifei (2025) A toolkit for assessing the di-  gital maturity of an intelligent industrial ecosystem based on coevolution and ecosystem synergy. π-  Economy, 18 (4), 32–53. DOI: 10.18721/JE.18402

    20. Babkin A.V., Shkarupeta E.V., Plotnikov V.A. (2021) Intelligent cyber-social ecosystem of Industry 5.0: definition, essence, model. Economic Revival of Russia, 4 (70), 39–62. DOI: 10.37930/1990-  9780-2021-4-70-39-62

    21. Skvortsova I.V., Teslya A.B., Somov A.G. (2026) Assessing industrial enterprise readiness  for artificial intelligence implementation as a basis for strategic digital transformation directions.  π-Economy, 19 (2), 7–28. DOI: 10.18721/JE.19201

    22. Kobzev V.V., Babkin A.V., Skorobogatov A.S. (2022) Digital transformation of industrial enter-  prises in the new reality, π-Economy, 15 (5), 7–27. DOI: 10.18721/JE.15501

    23. Bailey D.E., Faraj S., Hinds P.J., Leonardi P.M., von Krogh G. (2022) We Are All Theorists of  Technology Now: A Relational Perspective on Emerging Technology and Organizing. Organization  Science, 33 (1), 1–18. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1562

    24. Shrestha Y.R., Ben-Menahem S.M., von Krogh G. (2019) Organizational Decision-Making  Structures in the Age of AI. California Management Review, 61 (4), 66–83. DOI: 10.1177/00081256-19862257

    25. Babkin A.V., Mikhailov P.A., Shkarupeta E.V., Gaev K.B. (2024) Methodology for assessing the  digital maturity of an industrial enterprise and ecosystem based on dynamic coevolutionary potential.  π-Economy, 17 (4), 153–178. DOI: 10.18721/JE.17410

    26. Mikalef P., Krogstie J., Pappas I.O., Pavlou P. (2020) Exploring the Relationship between Big  Data Analytics Capability and Competitive Performance: The Mediating Roles of Dynamic and Operational Capabilities. Information & Management, 57 (2), art. no. 103169. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2019.05.004

    27. Bharadwaj A.S. (2000) A Resource-Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and  Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24 (1), 169–196. DOI: 10.2307/3250983

    28. Chae H.-C., Koch C.E., Prybutok V.R. (2014) Information Technology Capability and Firm  Performance: Contradictory Findings and Their Possible Causes. MIS Quarterly, 38 (1), 305–326. DOI:  10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.1.14

    29. Almeiri H.M., Ahmad S.Z., Abu Bakar A.R., Khalid K. (2024) Artificial intelligence capabili-  ties, dynamic capabilities and organizational creativity: contributing factors to the United Arab Emi-  rates Government’s organizational performance. Journal of Modelling in Management, 19 (3), 953–979.  DOI: 10.1108/JM2-11-2022-0272

    30. Hair J.F., Risher J.J., Sarstedt M., Ringle C.M. (2019) When to use and how to report the re-  sults of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31 (1), 2–24. DOI: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

    31. Garg V.K., Walters B.A., Priem R.L. (2003) Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental  dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (8), 725–744. DOI:  10.1002/smj.335

    32. Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie S.B., Lee J.-Y., Podsakoff N.P. (2003) Common Method Biases in  Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

    33. SmartPLS 4 (2026) SmartPLS 4. The world’s most user-friendly statistical software. Making complex models simple! [online] Available at: smartpls.com [Accessed 17.08.2026]

    34. Hair J.F., Howard M.C., Nitzl C. (2020) Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM  using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. DOI: 10.1016/j.  jbusres.2019.11.069

    35. Fornell C., Larcker D.F. (1981) Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Vari-  ables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50. DOI: 10.1177/0022243-78101800104

    36. Henseler J., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M. (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity  in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (1),  115–135. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

    37. Cohen J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    38. Choudhury S., Dey P., Joel-Edgar S., Bhattacharya S., Rodriguez-Espindola O., Abadi A.,  Truong L. (2023) Unlocking the value of artificial intelligence in human resource management through  AI capability framework. Human Resource Management Review, 33 (1), art. no. 100899. DOI: 10.1016/j.  hrmr.2022.100899

     

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Previous articleNext article