Project of Tech Updation

A Study of the Important Factors for Upgradation or Adoption of New Technology

Kanza Bushra
Roll No. MB-09-21
Session 2009-2010

Supervisor:
Liaqat Javed

Institute of Management Sciences
Bahauddin Zakariya University
Multan
2010

Institute of Management Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan

ATTESTATION OF AUTHORSHIP

I, Kanza Bushra Roll No. MB2-09-21 Registration No. 2005-bzba-158 A student of IMS MBA (II) Program in B.Z. University, solemnly declare that my Project Report entitled A Study of the Important Factors for Upgradation or Adoption of New Technology Is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person. This report is not submitted already and shall not be submitted in future for obtaining a degree from same or another University or Institution. If it is found to be copied/plagiarized at later stage of any student enrolled in the same or any other university, I shall be liable to face legal action before Unfair Mean committee (UMC), as per BZU/HEC Rules and Regulations, and I understand that if I am found guilty, my degree will be cancelled.

Signature

Name: Kanza Bushra Program: MBA (II)

CERTIFICATE

The project report entitled “A Study of the Important Factors for Upgradation or Adoption of New Technology”, at IMS-BZU MBA (II) / MS conducted by Kanza Bushra Roll No. MB2-09-21 Registration no. 2005-bzba-158 Session 2009-2010 has been completed under my guidance and I am satisfied with the quality of student’s research work.

Supervisor
_________________________
Name Liaqat Javed Date: _________________

ABSTRACT

This research is about the identifying the factors that drives the manufacturing organizations in Pakistan towards technology upgradation. There are many factors that involve or influence the organizations in their technology upgradation or adoption decisions. Those factors are of organizational factors, production factors, cost factors and IT factors. First we have given the brief introduction of the topic that contains all the background and definition of the factors, their history and then identified the problem statement. After that we mentioned all research work that already had been done by different researchers. That literature helps to define the area of our problem and provide secondary data for or research. After that we defined the method, resources and whole design of the research by which we conducted this research.
In the next phase we analyzed all the data, applied tests for hypotheses and explained all the results that come from this research and interpreted those results. The last phase is of findings and conclusion of the research, in which I explained the outcomes of the research and identified the factors that involved in technology upgradation or adoption process. The last part of the report findings explains the factors and give the findings about accepted or rejected hypotheses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to say Alhamdulillah, for giving me the strength and health to do this project work until it done.
Then special thank goes to my helpful supervisor, Mr. Liaqat Javed. The supervision and support that he gave truly help the progression and smoothness of this thesis. The co-operation is much indeed appreciated.
Not forgotten to my family for providing support and everything to complete this project and their advice, which is the most needed for this project.
Last but not least, my friends who were doing this project with me and sharing our ideas. They were helpful that when we combined and discussed together, we had this task done.

DEDICATION

Dedicated to all those who helped me and encouraged me even with single word, and to those, without whom I m nothing.

Contents ATTESTATION OF AUTHORSHIP 2 CERTIFICATE 3 ABSTRACT 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 5 DEDICATION 6 CHAPTER 1 9 1.1 BACKGROUND: 9 1.2 HISTORY: 10 1.3 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION: 11 1.5 UPGRADATION IN PAKISTAN: 12 1.6 RESEARCH STATEMENTS: 14 1.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS: 15 1.8 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: 15 1.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY: 16 1.10 DELIMITATIONS: 16 1.11 HYPOTHESIS: 17 CHAPTER 2 19 2.1 LITERATURE: 19 2.2 AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY 21 2.3 PRODUCTION BENEFITS: 28 2.4 TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL: 32 2.5 ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS: 37 2.6 MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE: 43 2.7 ENVIRONMENT: 46 2.8 INTENSITY OF TECHNOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: 47 2.9 LATENT APPLICATIONS: 48 CHAPTER 3 63 3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN: 63 3.2 POPULATION: 64 3.3 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: 64
3.3.1 Sample Size: 64
3.3.2 Sampling Unit: 65
3.3.3 Extent: 65 3.4 RESEARCH TOOL: 65
3.4.1 Survey Method: 65
3.4.2 Questionnaire: 65 3.5 DATA COLLECTION: 66 CHAPTER 4 67 4.1 STATISTICS: 67 4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: 70 4.3 SEPARATE VARIABLE ANALYSIS: 71 4.4 CROSSTABS: 101 4.5 TECHNOLOGY ADOPTED: 113 4.6 FACTOR ANALYSIS: 137 6.7 HYPOTHESIS TESTING: 140 4.8 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: 141 CHAPTER 5 144 5.1 FINDINGS: 144 5.2 CONCLUSION: 148 5.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY: 150 APPENDICES 159
APPENDIX-1 159

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND:

Technology itself is the upgradation or change. Technology is not static in its original sense. Technology in its definition is not only the name of machines and tools. Its definition is very broad. If we o for definition many researches definition the technologies in different ways. As technology is the process by which modify the nature to fulfill our needs; Technology is more than tangible things like computers, software and aircrafts. In its dictionary meanings “technology is a practice of applied sciences of commercial values”. Technology includes the entire infrastructure necessary for the design, manufacturing operation and repair. Some researchers say that technology is a complete set of knowledge of about how to produce economy at the point of time including techniques of production or the set of production functions in an economy. Technology is the set of tools both hardware (physical) and software (algorithm, philosophical and procedures) that help us act and think better. Technology includes all objects from basic pencil and paper to the latest gadget. Technology significantly affect human to control its environment. Technology is the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, and crafts or systems or method of organization.
Technology has an impact on the society and its surroundings in a number of ways. Technology has helped to develop more advanced technologies. Various implementations of technology influence the values of a society and new technology often raises new ethical questions. Examples include the raise of the nations of efficiency in terms of human productivity a term originally applied only to machines and the challenges of traditional norms.
1.2 HISTORY:

It looks funny to think about when technology and its upgradation start. Infect when the human came into being or when the life started, the technology also started. Like from the Stone Age 2.5 million BC, when human starts to live and survive he made tools to help, equipment to make life easy and weapons to protect themselves.
And from that time technology is developing and upgrading and with the ever passing time it is changing. Human are upgrading technology and adopting new technology according to his requirements. And that development, change, improvement and adoption has some factors or reasons, behind them. The use of the term technology has changed significantly over the last 200 years. Before the 20th century, the term was uncommon in English and usually referred to the description or study of the useful arts. The term was usually connected to the technical education. The meaning of the technology changed in the early 20th century when American social scientists beginning with thorstein Veblon, translated ideas from the German concept of “technik” into “technology”. In German and other European languages, a distinction exists between “technik” and “technologies”; that is not present in English and both terms are usually translated as technology.
By the 1930’s technology referred not to the “study of industrial art” but the “industrial art” itself. In 1937 the American sociologist Read Brain wrote that “technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communication and transporting devices and the skills by which we produce and use them”. Technology also refers to the collection of techniques. In the current state of knowledge and information is how to combine resources to produce desired products, to solve problems, fulfill needs or satisfy wants; it includes technical methods, skills, processes, techniques, tools and raw materials. And “state of art technology” refers to the high technology available in any filed.
1.3 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION:

From when the technology started, the development or upgradation and adoption of the new technology also started. Every passing day making the existing technology obsolete and coming with new and modified technology. But the question is why organization has to adopt new technology and upgrade the previous one. Many factors are involved to answer this question. There can be 2 categories of the reasons.
• Benefits of the upgradation
• Risks or problems
If we go for benefits there are many benefits regarding technology upgradation defined and searched by different researches. According to the (gentzer, 2002), “the technology upgradation increase the productivity. Other researchers like Baldwin, Diverty and Sabourin. Adopting new technology also increase the flexibility in the production process or overall organization process (beanmount & Schroder, 1997).
If we talk about the problems, then those problems of which the solution is upgradation or adaptation of new technology. That if the technology is not upgraded or adopted there will be risk for the firms. For example risk of or problem of competition is the factor for organizations for which they upgrade the technology.
1.5 UPGRADATION IN PAKISTAN:

In Pakistan government of Pakistan is also considering this as a vital issue and its benefits in the long run. In Pakistan “Technology upgradation and skill Development Company” is working for the development of the organizations. This organization has been established by Pakistan’s Ministry of industries and production to upgrade technology and skill of key and strategic industrial clusters and connect Pakistan to the global value chain (www.tusdec.org.pk).
And in skill developing projects TUSDEC 's Skill Development Group identifies existing skill deficits after conducting in depth surveys and delivers 'customer-focused ' training solutions. We have recognized that Pakistan needs to enhance all skill levels from the basic all the way to grooming a cadre of skilled managers. This approach will catalyze a quantum improvement in vocational, technical and management skills by:
• Assessing, planning, developing and delivering 'need based ' training through short and long term courses and workshops
• Conducting 'demand driven ' training programs for industry
• Offering consultancy and advisory services
• Designing and conducting International Executive Management programs and Technical Training programs
• Providing an opportunity to obtain Internationally Recognized Skill Certificates and Diplomas through SkillTech International 's campuses in Lahore and Karachi
Assimilation of technology upgrades help expedite value addition while enhancing productivity. Mass production of high value products will ultimately bootstrap the economy to increase the gross domestic product (GDP). Technology upgrades in developing countries can take them to the next development/time curve. In Pakistan, with abundant human resource, the use of modern techniques and skill development will help 'jump the curve ' to the next orbit of economic progress. A series of 'jumps ' to higher levels through technology upgrades will close the gap to reach parity with the developed world.
In their research section some objectives and activities are as follows:
• Research on technologies in use in Pakistan with global benchmarking
• Research latest technologies available for upgrading important industrial sectors
• Technology Gap Analysis of industrial clusters and assesses impact on GDP
• Develop technology databases
• Assist and support industrial clusters on technology acquisition
• Identify shortcomings in installed technology and impact on derivative products
(www.tusdec.org.pk)
So in Pakistan, vital work is performed by the government to upgrade the technology as they understand the importance and benefits of technology adoption and upgradation.
1.6 RESEARCH STATEMENTS:

This research is based or the problem of identifying the factor involved in the upgradation or adaptation of the new technology the problem statement is:
“What are the factors behind the upgradation or adoption of the new technology in Pakistani manufacturing organizations?”
1.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

The research questions for this study are according to the organizational factor which we considered for the research and data collected about them from organization are: * “Is production factors of an organization impact on its technology upgradation decisions?” * “Is organizational structure impact on firm’s technology upgradation decisions?” * “Is high competency level of the management leads the organization towards technology upgradation?” * “Is due to cost minimization factor organizations upgrade or adopt new technology?” * “Is different environmental factors force organization to upgrade the technology?” * “Is IT level of an organization leads it toward new technology adoption?”
1.8 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

The objective of this study is to explore the factors that drive manufacturing organizations to upgrade the technology or to take the decisions to adopt the new technology. And also have to see that what are the most critical and important factors that are considered by the Pakistani manufacturing organizations to upgrading the technology or upgrading the new one. We also see that what is the factor behind the decision of the upgrading the technology of the Pakistani firms? And what is the ratio of adopting the technology or upgrading the technology in previous 10 years in the Pakistani manufacturing organization.
1.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

This study will help the industries in decisions making about the upgradation of the technology. And to consider the importance of different factors which are involved in the upgradation or adoption of the technology. This study will be a valuable source to the manufacturing organizations of the Pakistan when they are making decisions about technology adoption or upgradation. This research will also be helpful to the firms to enhance their knowledge about production company’s technology adoption patterns; and to know that when and why organizations change or upgrade their technologies. This report will again will be helpful for the business students and professionals to understand the importance of different factors impacting on the technology upgradation.
1.10 DELIMITATIONS:

Any research cannot perfect otherwise not called “research”. Every research has some delimitation that defines the boundaries of the research. In this study, data is collected from only manufacturing organizations. The manufacturing organizations are of textile, sports goods, leather, tantage, rice mills, and fertilizers from which the data is collected and taken for research. And only those organizations were considered as sample that have upgraded or adopted the technology at least 1 time in previous 10 years. The organizations are taken only from Punjab province of Pakistan. There is no age limit of the organization.
1.11 HYPOTHESIS:

The categories for that data is collected from the organizations are: * Production factors * Organizational structure factors * Competency factors * cost factors * IT factors * Pressures
According to data and factors we have following hypothesis.
For production factors (manufacturing productivity enhancement, quality improvement, flexibility, ease of use and product development) the hypothesis is:
H1: “production factors of an organization impact on its technology upgradation decisions”
For organizational structure factors (competitive advantage, filling of gap between the firms machinery and new state of art, desire of being global, changing trend of the technology, partner’s alliance, customer demand and perceived benefits) there is the hypothesis:
H2: “organizational structure impact on firm’s technology upgradation decisions”
For competency factors of the firm (training, education of the management, confidence of the management, owner’s personal characteristics and competence) the hypothesis is:
H3: “high competency level of the management leads the organization towards technology upgradation”
For cost factors (production, sales and communication) hypothesis is:
H4: “due to cost minimization factor organizations upgrade or adopt new technology”
For factors that show pressure towards the firms to upgrade the technology or adopt the new technology like (government pressure, customer pressure, public pressure, shareholders pressure and supplier pressure) the hypothesis is:
H5: “different environmental factors force organization to upgrade the technology”
For IT factors (availability of technology resources, quality of the technology information, access to the information and level of IT in the organization) there is the hypothesis:
H6: “IT level of an organization leads it toward new technology adoption”

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 LITERATURE:

According to Fischer efficiency and effectiveness are the drivers for the new technology adoption, but efficiency and effectiveness are not by themselves realized by the adoption and utilization of the technologies instead of it these benefits ascribed by the actions or performance they perform by the adopters (FISCHER, 1996).
As the “Need is a precondition for the adoption of an innovation” (Dieperink, Brand, & Vermeulen, 2004).
The factors like increasing level of economic development and more competitive infrastructure of the industries can be determinants of the technology adoption or upgradation by a firm (Julien & Raymond, 1994). Technology accepting organizations can be distinguishes by the factors like higher profitability, the incremental cost of new equipment or machinery, the profile of the management or management’s, owner’s personal capabilities, organization’s level of complexity, centralized or formalized structure, the type of the strategy they use and lastly the quality of the technological information that how much it is authenticated (Julien & Raymond, 1994).
Ebusiness adaptation in the context of enforcement; by the society and relationship technology these are very important factors that contributing to retailer adoption of manufacturer 's ebusiness tools or techniques. This build up the measures for the retailer’s ebusiness adaptation in demand and supply actions or practices as well as the retailer sales power and benefits regarding orders (Talai, 2010).
Different organizations considerably different in the investment that they invest in information technology and the organization’s size (respect to the earnings and quantity of the workers) does not manipulate the speculation levels in information technology and assessment technique adopted by Small and Medium Enterprises are used as for the controlling and learning and in the end a major hurdle to mitigating investments in the information technology was ascribed to have not any tactical image. While organizations had not experienced any considerable divergence in strategic and operational paybacks that have been incurred after the adaptation of information technology, divergence was originated with the respect of strategic paybacks (Love & Irani, 2004). The management plays an important role in technology adaptation, as deficiency of management guiding principles to help in the decision making about the investments, may be force organizations to adopt one of many doubtful positions like a rejection to implement an information technological infrastructure that could help to the firm’s longer term profitability or outcomes (Love & Irani, 2004). SMEs usually adopt IT to improve productivity (cost efficiency) and performance of business processes.
The factors as competitive advantage, development of service value and firm’s profitability are also recognized as main incentives for information technology adoption. About 70% of the firms suggest that an incentive for the adoption of information technology is to support the strategic routes of the organization. Other then these pressures from competitors, who are applying information technology, support the strategic routes of the organization; advance service quality and developed market share are the factors behind the upgradation or adaptation of the technology (Love & Irani, 2004).
2.2 AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

According to the adoption of energy effectiveness increasing technologies by diverse firms, the reality is that energy usage does not just because the outside ecological costs throughout effluence, although also straight affects the effectiveness of the firm and thus its behavior on “input and output markets is taken for granted” (Verhoef & Nijkamp, 2003). So the one driver behind the upgradation or adaptation of the technology is technology effect on the environment and the other one is profitability of the firm.
The factors threat, ambiguity and knowledge play important and divergent roles in the procedure of adopting innovative technologies. The factor risk has frequently been considered as a critical factor eliminating the level of adoption of a new technology and the knowledge and education makes better the farmer’s ability to adopt and apply the new technology. Learning allows the farmer to make better decisions about the new technology (Marra, Pannell, & Ghadim, 2003).
“Perceived net benefit; mentioned as the potential benefits of precision agriculture technologies include reducing production costs, increasing yields, protecting the environment”. Apparent direct benefit incorporated the related advantages of using agriculture technologies over present performs with contemplation of monetary cost concerned in adopting and applying the technologies. Perceived net benefits are the idea that the “technology will provide benefit of greater value than its costs”. Other demographic factors that may have effect on the technology adoption decisions are like “age, farming experience, education level of farm managers/owners, off-farm employment, farm size and crops grown influence the adoption of precision agriculture technologies” (Daberkow & McBride, 2003). Economic benefits are the main motive given by producers or growers to accept agricultural technologies; other mind-sets play important roles in the technology upgradation decision. Considerate grower’ opinions and attitudes can guide researchers and retailer to develop products that address producers’ concerns in incorporating difficult-to-use technologies and build up conducts to express the advantages and usage of these products or commodities (Adrian, Norwood, & Mask, 2005).
There are a number of benefits that farmers expect to gain from access to information technology. For better understanding, these factors can be divided into two major categories. One is primary that reflects an assembly point on cost elimination, in which computers and Internet access are used to mechanize tasks and decrease operating costs. In this casing, the major outcomes of adopting the information technology flow from cost savings. The next region related to paybacks that growers might achieve from encouraging innovation. In this situation, “information technology allows and encourages new ways of doing things, stimulating additional productivity”. In this situation, the repayments of upgradation come from amplified productivity, instead of cost decline (Rolfe, Gregor, & Menzies, 2003).
With regards of agriculture technology the factors which influence the decision of adopting new technology are socioeconomic distinctiveness, such as size of the farm (Khanna, 2001), farming experience, education (Hudson, 2003) and access to the information (Daberkow S. , 2003). Other factors that impact on technology are many as “technology profitability, the location of the farm and physical attributes of the farm, such as variability of soil types” (Adrian S. A., 2005). And the other factors like economic profitability and attitudes towards technology adoption (Cochrane, 1993).
Implementation of information technology impacts may straight to production gains, as divergent to reductions in operating costs. There are several areas where this might happen, including: “better retrieval and evaluation of available data for management purposes, development of management decision support systems, development of processes for quality assurance and external regulatory compliance requirements, better links to remote sensing and geographic information systems data, better links to technical and other information, better links to agricultural suppliers, more direct feedback from customers and consumers, improved supply chain management, opportunities for marketing and other networks to emerge” (Rolfe, Gregor, & Menzies, 2003).
Industry reserves in IT does not only produce regular charges of outcome by replacing labor, but permit a great deal greater output gains to be prepared. In current years, “agricultural enterprises have adopted information technology at a high rate, suggesting that agricultural producers are gaining real benefits from employing information technology in their businesses, however, these benefits have been difficult to identify and quantify” (Rolfe, Gregor, & Menzies, 2003).
As the old pipe line technologies guides organizations to “higher investments and higher labor, operating and maintenance costs for companies which in turn decreases the productivity of the company (lower output per unit of inputs)” and on the other hand new technologies can guide to an raise in productivity due to cost reserves and validation effects in the production procedure (Getzner, 2002). Other than this, the Social conflicts in a wider circumstance of sustainability contain amongst others the standard of livelihood, value of jobs, and self-governing culture consequence on the decisions of the upgradation or adaptation of the technology. The economic advantages as a factor of technologies have also been recognized extensively in quantitative and qualitative terms (Tietenberg, 1998) (Getzner M. , 2000). Other factors mentioned as the upgradation of technology makes better the amount and value of service in the companies apprehensive but the effect on service differs according to several significant factors (Getzner, 2002).
The usage of IT by the “suppliers, customers, and competitors significantly affects firms’ inter organizational system adoption decisions” (Teo, Wei, & Benbasat, 2003). There are many factors like “supplier selection, purchase order processing, invoicing, logistics planning, and demand management, and externally for use in B2B transactions with partners in supply networks” that effect on adopting the technology (Zhang & Dhaliwal, 2009).
The technology ultimately upgraded will also be improved and have inferior contamination concentration. The “Lack of managerial skill, inadequate capital markets, and the fact that technologies can be evaluated along various dimensions” are the factors that effect on the adaptation of technology (Soest & van, 2005).
Some factors identified important for the adaptation of the information technology are “perceived benefits, compatibility (organizational and technical), complexity and management support”. When large number of firms adopt a technology the technology becomes legitimized and quite than asking “why do it”, firms begin to ask “who is doing it” and “why are we not doing it” (Beatty, Shim, & Jones, 2001).
“The larger organizations stand on an unyielding foundation with more resources and better capability in tackling risks; After growing into a certain level, an organization will be able to adopt innovative technology” (Grover & Goslar, 1993).
The factors distressing the adaptation or upgradation of inventive technology can be discovered in variety of magnitude like “organizational factors containing management support, resources, user participation and project related factors like resource, user participation, team skills and technical factors high quality source systems, better development technology, etc. According to an empirical research conducted (Alavi & Leidner, 1999) the success/failure of adopting KM can be seen from three aspects of management, knowledge and information content, and technology”.
The technology has the capability to create shortcuts in working and can make tasks easier also (JaBoo, 2005). “Need for organizations to employ techniques that can decrease workload, including those affecting technology implementation decisions, the culture of public accounting may create impediments to the adoption of new technologies by audit teams. Factors affecting an in charge’s decision to implement new technology on an engagement, including two contextual or firm-level factors (length of the engagement budget period and remote superior influence) and two individual characteristics (risk preference and perceived budget pressure). Technology cost more first time they are implemented and then they save in that first era and also are likely to cost more than the overall improvement in audit quality gained in the first period. And firms have the ability to manipulate the implementation of new technology by using longer term budget and evaluation periods” (Mary, Curtis, & Elizabeth, 2008).
The execution of technology is linked with extended phrase outcomes (Lovata, 1988). The factors behind the upgradation or adaptation of the technology are performance expectation, effort expectation and social pressure (Venkatesh V. , Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).
Big organizations have a propensity to accept innovations for technology decisions to a bigger degree than small organizations. Firms should act in response to particular doubts in the, savings decisions for adopting the technology (Verbeeten & Frank, 2006).
The factor behind the adoption of the technology or improving it is that the newer technology is cheaper than the old one. New technology is less labor intensive and more productive. It also depends on managers of the organizations recognizing the need for a instantaneous process of organizational restructuring (Millard, Ducatel, & Jeremy, 1996).
Investigators say this “embodies an attempt to eliminate the traditional division between the user and the machine. Virtual reality is anticipated to provide a means of naturally and intelligently interacting with information. Virtual reality is competing to be the interface of the future, allowing ordinary users to use their senses to interact with complex data. Mostly all advances in technology have an impact on society at large, and virtual reality is definitely one of them. Virtual realism will have major effects, both positive and negative, on our society in the future. While at present only in the beginning stages, virtual reality could change our future way of life drastically” (Biocca).
The effects of factors on technology adoption are Access as for other technologies, “effects of access on adoption were confounded by technologies being better adopted in those agro economic zones to which they were better adapted and by agro economic zones being an important determinant of access”. Altitude of adoption of the technologies was “consistently and significantly affected by the level of extension input. Amplified levels of expansion input were associated with increased levels of technology awareness, with increased rates of trying once aware and with a lesser frequency of information and/or inputs related constraints” (Subedi, Floyd, Harding, Paudel, Rasali, & saaudi, 2003).
The upgradation of superior technologies is intimately connected to productivity outcomes and other trial of organization presentation (Baldwin, Diverty, & Sabourin, 1995). “The judgment to adopt advanced technologies ultimately rests with the benefits the technology provides and the costs associated with its adoption. Factors behind the upgradation or adaptation of the technology are many such as improvements in productivity, product quality and working conditions; reductions in production costs associated with such factors as lower labor requirements and inventory, reduced material and energy consumption, increased equipment utilization and reduced product rejection (Baldwin & Lin, 2002). Payback of technology use is far ranging from increasing productivity, to improving flexibility, to producing higher quality products, to reducing production costs” (Beaumont & Schroder, 1997).
2.3 PRODUCTION BENEFITS:

Development in output happen when the similar output can be formed with smaller quantity inputs. That guide to a decrease in manufacture expenses. “Production costs can also be reduced when lower cost inputs can be substituted for higher cost inputs, when lower skilled labor can be substituted for higher skilled labor. Flexibility is a benefit when product line diversity can be extended by new technologies. Product quality improvements result from lower scrap page rates or from more reliable products, i.e. power sources for computers that have lower failure rates”. A development in general output (from time to time submitted to as whole factor output) is the most often described benefit connected with advanced technology adaptation (Baldwin & Lin, 2002). On the whole “productivity improvements can be achieved through a variety of means, e.g. a reduction in labor usage, raw material or energy consumption, and better equipment utilization. To a range of degrees, advanced technology users identify benefits in all of these areas. But the governing category here is a reduction in labor requirements. Another most important benefit resulting from the adoption of advanced technologies is an improvement in product quality. As a final point, a good percentage of firms report that working conditions had improved as a result of advanced technology use. In summing up, advanced technology users report an impressive list of benefits, with productivity and quality improvements being the most important”.
Manufacturing relayed on the technology choice of the organizations. “More advanced (more productive) technologies involve a greater range of intermediate goods and thus a higher degree of specialization. A firm decides on technology (on the range of specialized intermediate goods), recognizing that a more advanced technology is more productive. There is a relationship between the firm and its suppliers, on technology choices. A greater range of intermediate inputs increases productivity by allowing greater specialization and thus corresponds to more advanced technology” (DARON, POL, & ELHANAN, 2007).
Other factor which influence the upgradation or adoption decisions are “Improvement in productivity, reduction in labor requirement, reduction in material consumption, reduction in energy consumption, increase in equipment utilization, increase in capital requirement, reduction in capital investment, reduction in inventory, improvement in product quality, reduction in product rejection, reduction in setup time, increase in product flexibility, improvement in working condition, reduction in environmental damage and increase in skill requirement” (Baldwin, Sabourin, & Rafiquzzaman, 1996).
Precise construction troubles or the requirement to improve the general product and procedure flexibility might additional motivate technological modification. Technology might also be the base for enhanced products to keep up a pressure over opponents. “The first and most obvious reason is to upgrade or adopt the technology is customer needs and wants. Competitive and environmental change may compel companies to seek new technologies. Companies must be rapid and decisive, knowing exactly what requirements and constraints are placed on the technology being sought, where to look for it and how to acquire it”. Organizations should congregate together and farm out tasks for discovering the innovative equipment (NOORI, 1997).
The mission of selecting the appropriate technology can be more simplify by analyzing five main factors. “Companies that bring together their analysis of these variables with each phase of the guideline of technology adoption will be able to address the majority of influencing elements. These are some variables that are complexity; the greater the complexity, in general, the greater the degree of automation required, precision; the greater the precision required, in general, the greater the degree of automation required, Batch or lot size; the larger the lot size, in general, the less the degree of flexibility required in the manufacturing process and equipment, diversity; the greater the diversity of models, in general, the more flexibility is needed” (Noori, 1994).
Both commentator and dealer firms graded factors such as “R&D, product design and marketing skills somewhat lower than factors such as quality, manufacturing skill and prompt delivery. This may replicate the importance that these companies place on their current role as assemblers of final products. With high opinion to the actual impact of the technology on anchor companies, the greatest impact was achieved in the areas of better quality followed by reduction of direct labor costs, increase in offering a wider range of products and greater capacity to meet demand. With value to the genuine impact of the technology on vendor companies, the greatest impact was achieved in the area of faster turnaround, reduced direct labor costs and reduced overall unit costs. With respect to strategic factors for technology upgradation, anchor companies expected stability of customer relationships, interaction with customer and introduction of new product lines to have the most important strategic benefits. On the other hand, vendor companies projected flexibility, customer relations and interaction with customers to be of greatest strategic benefit (NOORI, 1997). Firm 's predictable benefit from advanced technologies exceeded actual benefits, however, overall, they found the adoption of advanced technologies was successful. In a survey firms experienced increased quality, reduced costs, faster turnaround and greater capacity among other improvements”.
The concept of advantage categorization is not latest, with having separated the paybacks attainable by the upgradation of technology into two classes, named as direct benefits and the 2nd is intangible benefits (Tayyari, Kroll, Parsaei, Ward, & Karworski, 1990). (Peters, 1994) Propose that the benefits of information technology or information system adaptation incurred into three classes: “enhanced productivity, business expansion and risk minimization. Although the search for benefit identification can contribute to the success of an IT/IS investment, organizations have often found it difficult to evaluate them and as a result tend to use notional arbitrary values for assessing benefits” (Ballantine, Galliers, & Stray, 1996).
As in the structure industry, (love & Irani) originate that “over 60% of organizations did not prepare a benefits delivery plan or have access to benefits related performance data. Indeed, most firms sampled by (love & Irani) believed that benefits would simply accrue after technology had been implemented. On the other hand, strategic and operational benefits focus on efficiency and so are able to be identified and quantified more readily. And the cause for this is that they relate to specific departments or processes and therefore their immediate impact can be determined” (Love, Irani, & Edwards, 2004).
The implementation of innovative technology plays a fundamental function in the improvement procedure. There is huge difference, contained by areas and between them, in the level to which people have taken the advantage from the accessibility of these latest technologies. Literature illustrated “by the well known positive correlation between wealth and adoption of new technology. Practical work in development economics argues that technology adoption (and income maximizing production choices more generally) may be hindered when returns are risky and insurance or other financial markets are imperfect” (Giné & Yang, 2009).
Most of these procedures use from the “Theory of Reason Action (TRA), which suggests that attitude (the individual’s beliefs) can explain behavior and Theory of Diffusion (Rogers, 1983), which suggests that adoption of an innovation is dependent on an individual’s perception about the innovation. Information systems research shows that attitudes in the direction of a technology”, mainly people’ thinking of their individual capability to learn the use of technology.
2.4 TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL:

Some of the factors behind adoption of the technology or upgrading of it are these, like Perceived usefulness, as the author (Davis, 1989) describes “perceived usefulness as the belief that using a particular technology will enhance the potential user’s job performance. A latent user of a technology who perceives the technologies as useful is more likely to adopt the technology. Factors like perceived ease of use, another variable that influences the intention to adopt information technologies, as the belief that using a particular technology will be free of physical and mental effort. Insight of ease of use could affect the intent to adopt technologies through perception of usefulness. Confidence, the confidence subscale is used to measure the confidence of a producer to learn and use precision agriculture technologies. The approach of having the ability to learn and use technology influences the perception of usefulness since the expectations of the technology is derived from how well one can use the technology and is motivated to use the technology” (Compeau & Higgins, 1995).
“Technology upgradation or technology adoption in fact base on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an information systems (System consisting of the network of all communication channels used within an organization) theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology, The model suggests that when users are presented with a new software package, a number of factors influence their decision about how and when they will use it, notably: Perceived usefulness”. As described by Fred Davis that "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance". And the perceived ease of use, Davis clear this as "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort" (Davis, 1989). Though according to the technology acceptance model, “if a user perceives a specific technology as useful, he will believe in a positive use performance relationship” (Mazhar, 2010).
The TAM (technology Acceptance Model) is being used widely to clarify and forecast customers’ personal opinion to adopt or upgrade the new technologies. A number of representations have been anticipated to direct investigation into this fact (Cheong & Park, 2005) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). The fundamental “theoretical premise underlying TAM is that an individual’s intention to purchase a product or service is determined by two factors: perceived usefulness and ease of use. TAM, which has been particularly personalized for modeling user acceptance of information technologies, explains the determinants of computer acceptance by tracing the impact of external factors on internal beliefs, attitudes, and intentions” (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989).
In technology acceptance model (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) described the phrase ‘‘perceived usefulness’’ and explained it as “the prospective user’s subjective probability that using a specific application system will increase his or her job performance within an organization. As (Phillips, Calantone, & Lee, 1994) introduce a construct which is equivalent to perceived usefulness but more relevant to organization perception: ‘‘perceived benefits of adoption.’’ This construct is defined as the potential adopter’s biased evaluation of the utility of the technology and the opinion that applying the technology will be beneficial to the company’s well-being. To the adopting firm, the perceived benefit requires both economic and qualitative benefits consequential from adopting the technology, including amplified productivity, improved efficiency, cost savings, improvement in market share, and better customer service (Phillips, Calantone, & Lee, 1994). The additional benefits organizations can forecast from using the technology, the more likely they are to adopt the technology given sufficient support and facilitation” (Wang & Qualls, 2007).
Technology paybacks come from many sources. “The taxes and permits affect the model of adoption of an environmentally friendly technology when firms engage in imperfect competition on the output market and the regulator commits to the optimal ex post amount of emissions. When the output demand is more flexible, the regulator speeds up technological diffusion by using auctioned permits instead of emission taxes or freely allocated permits” (Coria, 2009).
Each particular technology 's basic or direct personal outcomes have a tendency to be at variance from organization to organization and from individual to individual (DeCanio & Watkins, 1998). Another factor behind the adaptation or upgradation of the technology is subsiding by the government as the “impact of subsidies on adoption behavior by means of an economic laboratory. There are no social penalties of the technologies adopted, only private ones; While social motivations (including corporate responsibility) undoubtedly play a role in many instances of real world investment behavior”. In lots of countries, organizations and individual can gather government subsidies if they put into practice some technologies or appliances with publicly wanted distinctiveness. “A lot of technologies and appliances give not only benefits to the owner, but also to society at large and technologies fluctuate in the per-period benefits they yield, and their purchase price increases with per period benefits provided” (Aalbers, Heijden, Potters, Soest, & Vollebergh, 2009).
Plainly “investing in new technologies is not likely to provide a competitive advantage and that the full benefits of new technologies are only realized when they are used together with new workplace organizations including training”. This literature is in great fraction an endeavor to clarify “skilled biased technological change”, which appears to have directed to enlarged requirement for extremely expert workers, comparative to demand for in lesser amount of expert workers (Yan, 2006).
To assess “potential benefits generated by new energy options. This technique allows us to account for a multiplicity of economic, social and environmental indicators, but especially for a particular form of benefits, termed as Ordinal Benefits. When substitute technologies are compared, financial evaluations related to capital profitability and operational costs tend to prevail”. Economic paybacks occur from the investment monetary payback to the company and the public as a whole. The next typology of reimbursement communicates to the conventional design of externality (Giannantoni & Zoli, 2010).
Social policies from the previous three decades, “the descriptive power of theories of regulatory politics, the choice of regulatory instruments, the assessment of regulatory impacts, and the influence of each of these on the innovation and diffusion of technology (and of regulation). Over time and crossways countries, institutional factors such as regulation obviously have a major influence on the rate of technological change and thus on societal prosperity. Technological transform is generally ascribed with half or more of productivity growth. Technological change itself can decrease risks by introducing better new methods of production” (Innovation and the environment, 2000).
In fact “regulation is a set of techniques for changing production functions to produce less of some outputs, such as pollution, or more of others. Regulation is the technology of governance. The control of regulation on technology is critically dependent on the technology of regulation. Diverse regulatory designs can impede or accelerate technological change, or shape it in varying ways, favoring some kinds of technology over others. The assessments are frequently conducted ex ante, before the decision to accept the new technology or regulation”, and this is a significant step towards technology upgradation (Wiener & Jonathan, 2004).
2.5 ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS:

The reality is that, while companies are seeing for effectiveness, they are in institutional limitations as well as a variety of communal prospects and norms that may be in clash with effectiveness. “Institutional factors influence a firm’s adoption of an innovation have been mixed. On the other hand, organizational culture is establish to be a key factor influencing supply chain management practices and innovative information systems adoption. A firm is more possible to adopt an information system if the values embedded in the system fit its organizational culture. Together institutional and cultural factors might affect a firm’s tendency toward Internet enabled Supply Chain Management systems adoption, the direct effect comes from institutional pressures and organizational culture moderates the underlying process of such effects”.
“Internet enabled Supply Chain Management systems are the technical enabler of the orchestration of value chain operations across firm boundaries. Reaping the benefits of Internet enabled Supply Chain Management systems poses great challenges, especially given that a firm cannot adopt them independently of other firms in the field” (Teo, Wei, & Benbasat, 2003). To upgrade internet enabled SCM systems, the company needs to shift from a traditional, arms length relationship with its channel members to a precise, long term business partnership, which certainly guides to high interdependence (Morash & Clinton, 1998).
As mentioned by the researchers “the success of Internet enabled Supply Chain Management a system relies on the adoption by the focal firm’s supply chain partners and the diffusion of such systems in the industry. For real adoption decisions to occur a lot of other factors, such as resource constraints, could be playing a role in the process and our results would be less clear. The firm’s observation of these pressures affects its interpretation of the environment in general and innovation adoption. Normative pressures pass on to the pressures that branch from collective expectations within particular organizational contexts of what constitutes appropriate and thus legitimate behavior”. “Normative pressures were calculated by three items on the extent of Internet enabled Supply Chain Management systems adoption by suppliers, customers, and competitors in the focal firm’s industry. ; Mimetic pressures were considered by three objects on the perceived success of competitors that had adopted Internet enabled Supply Chain Management systems; coercive pressures were measured by four items on the perceived dominance of supplier adopters and customer adopters” (Liu, Ke, Wei, Gu, & Chen, 2010).
“Absorptive capacity and experience; the firm’s ability to absorb knowledge from external sources is another major determinant of innovation and technology adoption. There are mostly two aspects of a firm’s absorptive capacity for new technologies: initially, the firm’s overall ability to assess technological opportunities in (or around) its fields of activity in terms of new products and production techniques, which depends primarily of the firm’s endowment with human and knowledge capital (Cohen & Levinthal, 1989). Next, learning effects that may come up from prior use of a technology or from experience with a predecessor of a specific technology embodying constituent elements of later applied more advanced vintages” (Windrum & de Berranger, 2002).
Institutional stress work in performance with other pressures, like as competitive or market pressures, to influence environmental actives (Carpenter & Feroz, 2001).
The pressure of “financial constraints on the dispersion of new technologies is a theme that has been recently introduced in the literature, although it is widely accepted that the availability of funds conditions investment decisions, its effect over particular innovations has not been extensively studied (Stoneman, 2001). The traditional analysis of distribution has studied the introduction of one technology in isolation from other technologies. However, technologies may be complements or substitutes and the decision to adopt one type may either increase or reduce the probability of introducing another”.
It is all the way in the course of their distribution as “the goods of invention and innovation become widely available to users and produce their economic benefits; in exacting, the adoption of new process technologies has been shown to have positive effects on firm performance and competitive advantage” (Stoneman & Kwon, 1996).
This research emphasizes upon the effects of companies’ economic barrier and absorptive aptitude for the machinery adaptation. About the grower, “it is numerous to find that larger firms are more likely to introduce new technologies. As (Astebro, 2002) has exposed, this result could be due to reasons linked with size. Technologies might be complements or substitutes in the production process (Stoneman & Diederen, 1994). This can make a serious problem when estimating models of adoption. On the other hand, recent methodological developments on multivariate probate models that allows the joint estimation of the adoption equations for different technologies” (Cappellari & Jenkins, 2003).
The firm’s internal dispersion of latest technologies proceeds as each firm takes the decision to spend in a new technology. The spending in technology adoption or technology upgradation is initiated by four main types of factors: “rank, stock, order and epidemic effects” (Karshenas & Stoneman, 1993).
“The subsistence of rank effects is based on the assumption that firms are different in terms of the relevant characteristics that determine the profitability of using an innovation. Stock and order belongings pass on to the number of competitors adopting the new technology and the position of the firm in the order of adoption. On the one hand, the marginal effectiveness for an adopter diminishes as the quantity of competitors using the new technology rises (stock effect). On the other hand, early adopters get hold of higher returns from the adoption of new technology (order effects). Finally, the pandemic effect captures the thought that the decision to adopt depends on the amount of information accessible on the existence and profitability of a new innovation, which increases as the number of users of the new technology grows”. Some authors have investigated substitute explanations for the effect of firm size. “Noncapital investment expenses, equipment alternate, risk aversion and learning and more importantly, within this the line of investigation, firm size has also been a variable frequently associated to the availability of financial resources in a context in which financial markets are unsatisfactory” (Fuentelsaz, Gómez, & Polo, 2003).
The beginning of numerically proscribed tools effects by the adaptation of tools. Though, this is truth that the implementation of new technologies might be predisposed by management and customers (Leonard & Deschamps, 1998). “Larger firms are capable to spread the cost of investing in a new technology among a high number of units or they are more likely to possess the specialized complementary assets needed for the commercial success of innovations” (Teece, 1986).
Firms are likely to have “more equipment in use than smaller firms and, consequently, they are expected to have more equipment in need of replacement. Succeeding, the wider array of operations in which they are involved makes it more likely that they perform activities suitable for the use of a new technology. Lastly, larger firms have more assets available to them and are more likely to be able to finance an investment and to absorb a loss should a risky investment occur”. “The introduction of an innovation may have need of significant investments in order to acquire the units needed for production. In the case of process innovations, the costs connected with reformation the production process and the costs of knowledge how to use the innovation effectively may impose additional charges on adoption (Jaime & Pilar, 2009). Away from size effects, firms with extensive internal financial sources may find adoption easier” (Stoneman, 2001).
The attitude of companies is to some extent different depends upon the industries to which they are linked to and these distinctions are considerable. Furthermore, “both the existence of foreign investors in the capital of the firm and its corporate status could be affecting the adoption decision. The outcome of these two variables on the introduction of the three technologies is not obvious. The cause of market structure on innovation has been one of the most debated relationships among researchers. Firm size, the strength of R&D investments and the ratio of exports to sales are significant for explaining the different behavior followed by the firms included in the sample, being positively associated to having introduced the technology” (Jaime & Pilar, 2009).
Firm size: “those organizations less financially embarrassed would have a higher probability of having adopted the three technologies. As regards the effect of control variables, market structure seems not to have at all effect on adoption. The estimations verify the role of firm size, financial constraints and absorptive capability in explaining the adoption behavior of manufacturing firms in Spain”. The capacity of a firm to take up new technology did play a considerable role at explaining adoption patterns (Jaime & Pilar, 2009).
The “introduction of firm effects into distribution analysis seems to be crucial. Both the casual effects estimator and the multivariate technique used point to the difficulties of suitably and fully specifying the determinants of the adoption decision (Jaime & Pilar, 2009). The larger organizations are more expected to be adopters of new process technologies. The accessibility of data did not allow us to search for substitute explanations that could explain this association” (Astebro, 2002).
2.6 MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE:

The next clarification is that adaptation supports the interests of managers with those of shareholders. This is assumed to happen subsequent a level of poor performance by the firm. Management agreements are restructured to return managers for growing the long run performance of the firm. Researchers find that the adoption of performance strategy by electric utilities is analytically connected to a move in their narrow environment, the stage of production efficiency, and modifications in their corporate plan (Brooks, May, & Mishra, 2001).
“Writing of environmental policy puts manager’s attitudes as determinant of innovation in a central point. The fundamental assumption is that radical changes in environmental attitudes of the firms’ CEOs and managers implies a reorientation of business strategy or at least its environmental planned behavior” (Corral, 2003).
An inclusive review of theory is there that some researchers, and practices on knowledge management build up a framework that compares on hand technology-push models with planned strategy-pull models. The outline gives details that how “the important gaps between technology inputs, linked knowledge processes, and business performance outcomes can be bridged for the two types of models. Descriptive case studies of real time enterprise business model designs for both successful and unsuccessful companies are used to provide real world understanding of the proposed framework. Findings suggests dominance of strategy-pull models made feasible by new "plug-and-play" information and communication technologies over the traditional technology-push models” (Malhotra Y. , 2004).
Willingness and attitudes of the management with the environmental policy play a key role to adopt the greening of the industry. Behind adoption of the greening technologies many factors are involved as “public and shareholder pressures, regulations enforcement, market demand, community concerns, customer demands, liability, public image and social responsibility, cognitive and attitudinal factors such as perceptions, personality, efficacy, leadership, and environmental awareness and the ethics of mangers and CEOs, economic efficiency and opportunity, lack of technological opportunities and the necessity of generating a new knowledge base prior to attaining a sustainable industrial development; the industrial and trade relationships across the supply chain, the relation between end users and suppliers, the firms’ technological and organizational endowments” (Corral C. M., 2003) And for this industry has to adopt clean technologies and clean procedures that new improvement of a new technological store and regulatory systems give confidence to innovation towards clean manufacturing. That upgradation in clean production systems is recently observed as one of the key economic multipliers of the 21st century (Corral C. M., 2003).
Technology acceptance is directly determined by “behavioral intention to use, which is in turn influenced by users’ attitudes toward using the system and the perceived usefulness of the system and perceived usefulness, reflecting a person’s salient belief in the use of the technology, will be helpful in improving performance” (Lee, 2009).
As it is clarified by the researches that top management or directors or owners perform an important responsibility in the decision making procedure of technology innovation. “Management support, attitude and involvement will be a crucial factor in the technology adoption process (Lefebvre, Mason, & Lefebvre, 1997). Research has also shown that technology projects are usually constrained by resources available to the organization, especially the budget to support the adoption. Previous research has verified that the technology budget has a great impact on whether organizations can eventually adopt the technology, irrespective of how beneficial the technology might be to the organization”. It therefore, has an encouraging impact on the overall adoption manners (Goode & Stevens, 2000).
Vital significance of strategic carrying out in directing the design of enterprise information methods as well as selection and implementation of connected technologies is clarified. Technologists by no means evangelize with any stipulation: “Technology is just an enabler”. One imperfection in knowledge management is that “it time and again neglects to ask what knowledge to manage and toward what end. Management and coordination of a variety of technology architectures, data architectures, and system architectures poses obvious knowledge management challenges” (Malhotra, 2004).
“The challenges consequence from the need for integrating diverse technologies, computer programs, and data sources across internal business processes. These challenges are compounded multiple by the synchronized need for simultaneously adapting enterprise architectures to keep up with changes in the external business environment. Often such adaptation requires upgrades and changes in obtainable technologies or their replacement with newer technologies. Obtainable business enterprises often have too much (unprocessed) data and (processed) information and too many technologies”. On the other hand, “for most high risk and high return strategic decisions, timely information is often unavailable as more and more of such information is external in nature. Internal information may often be desperately out of date with respect to evolving strategic needs”. Rotations of reforming and economizing often put down small time or attention to make sure that the leading business logic is reserved in tune with varying competitive and strategic needs. The gap between IT and business performance has developed with the changing focus of business technology strategists and executives. The technology transactions forecasts are discouraging because of disbelieve of business executives who were earlier oversold on the abilities of technologies to address actual business intimidation and opportunities (Malhotra Y. , 2005).
2.7 ENVIRONMENT:

An organization’s outside environment in general, included of the “demographics, socio-cultural, politico legal, macroeconomic, global and technological as well as competitive forces” that affect its operations. The universal and technological powers are chiefly important for organizations that interrelate with overseas markets at diverse stages of economic and technological development while these establish the probable technology applications that could be set out. “Organizations that situate foreign operations, affiliate with foreign facilities, serve worldwide customers and have worldwide suppliers, serve local customers but have worldwide suppliers or that are supplied locally but serve worldwide customers are considered to operate in a global environment. likewise, a firm’s competitive position and the structure of its value-chain relative to competitors, suppliers and major customers guides the assessment of viable strategic alternatives and the mandatory enabling technological applications. More, factor inputs such as the human capital or the demographic structure of potential workers and skill levels at the local or global market allow a firm to estimate the requisite cost of training and developing employees. in the same way, factor inputs such as the industrial infrastructure and sustaining industries in the local and global environment point out availability of reliable electrical power and telecommunication services for basing IT applications” (Desai, Desai, & Ojode, 2004).
2.8 INTENSITY OF TECHNOLOGY DISTRIBUTION:

The major factor is the altitude of technology distribution within a company. This is because management has to understand how much of technology is in use in their operations. Understanding the rank of distribution of information technology within an organization let the company to make improved forecasts for upcoming growth (Desai, Desai, & Ojode, 2004).
2.9 LATENT APPLICATIONS:

The evaluation of latent applications wants a stock of a diversity of procedures within an organization and conveying complication levels to each procedure. That is, how compound a procedure would be if a technological decision were put into practice. “Consideration the flow of information within a business process helps conclude the nature of IT needed in order to automate that process” (Desai, Desai, & Ojode, 2004).
Corresponding to extensive “computerization and the adoption of internal electronic tools within firms is the increasing skills level of the workforce in what has come to be known as the technology-skill complementarily (Goldin & Katz, 1998)”. As the matter of fact “digital technologies have led to the lowering of costs, and superior quality products, mainly in small and medium organizations that could not previously compete on the basis of scale. For example the use of computer-aided designs (CAD); computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) has revolutionized production in both the machinery sector as well as in process industries” (Oyeyinka & Lal, 2006).
The constant diffusion of electronic instrument in conventional sectors has directed to converted interest in, and larger competitiveness of these divisions. The use of computer incorporated manufacturing has induced enhanced speed of manufacturing as well as production flexibility in product and procedure. These changes demand corresponding information and skills (Oyeyinka & Lal, 2006).
The adaptation of electronic business technologies occupying high speed computers connected with developed telecommunications technologies has not simply resulted in to some extent lower transactions costs but as well promoted growing intra firm and inter firm incorporation functions. “Firms receive high profit margins not only in the course of low earnings and low skills production but also through fast delivery of customized products and services to customers. The scope advantage of small organizations has been significantly enhanced by new technologies be they manufacturers of batch orders or subcontractors to larger organizations” (Oyeyinka & Lal, 2006).
Internet technology has a directly effect on organizations, consumers, suppliers, distributors and probable new participants into an industry (Porter, 2001). In some cases, Internet technology adaptation and implementation give to the construction of competitive advantages (Del Aguila, Bruque, & Padilla, 2002).
In the intervening time, the adoption of information technology by companies is a question that has been evaluated from diverse viewpoints and theoretical perceptions, like as transaction cost economics, population ecosystem, or source dependence theory (Iskandar, Kurokawa, & Leblanc, 2001)
As the internet technology adoption or upgradation can be well thought-out as a pack up of innovations (Daniel, Wilson, & Myers, 2002). The factors for technology upgradation or adoption are assembled into different categories: “internal or organizational, external and technological factors (Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990) and these external factors, according to research (Teo & Tan, 1998) are not as much of important as internal and technological factors and in this respect, when adopting a technology, companies must identify the positive effects of the adoption and hence its potential value before starting the process” (Vadapalli & Ramamurthy, 1997). * Organizational factors:
According to researches, these factors are “Internal technical support, top management support, IT experience, IT in use, IT knowledge by top management, IT capability among employees, IT expertise among supervisors, IT training, positive attitude to IT use and organizational structure” (Cooper & Zmud, 1990) (Kuan & Chau, 2001) (Teo & Tan, 1998). * External factors:
According to the research of (Kuan & Chau, 2001) and (Cooper & Zmud, 1990)the external factors are “outside consultants, use of IT by trading partners, organization’s image and internet image”. * Technological factors:
These are “external communication (email), obtaining information from suppliers, offering information to consumers, contact with governmental agencies, internal communication, sending purchase orders to suppliers, product and market research, receiving orders from customers, ability to reach out to international markets, form and extend business networks, operational efficiency, management effectiveness, competitive advantage, improve organization image and new business opportunities” (Cooper & Zmud, 1990; Teo & Tan, 1998; Kuan & Chau, 2001).
Technological assets and executive or management abilities are the much important organizational factors to explain the technology adoption procedure. An adoption/adaptation phase support from outside consultants in order to be able to develop and reach the acceptance stage, when the firm sees real changes in organizational routines and improvements in its efficiency and effectiveness. This is mostly due to a lack of management abilities to manage technologies (Del Aguila & Melendez, 2006).
“Empirical studies often contain a detailed description of technological development, supplemented with a list of those factors that had an influence on this development” (Schot, 1992).
The adoption of technology has received frequent concentration from the years. One avenue of study has concentrated on theory of adoption processes. Other studies have focused on identifying significant characteristics associated with adopters and no adopters. These technologies represent significant capital investments and human capital costs to the adopter. Several studies have investigated producer participation in group pest control (Rook and Carlson, Pingali and Carlson, Roe and Nygaard, Anneman and Farnsworth, Burrows) and the effect of producer uniqueness on the adoption of IPM technologies (Harper, Rister, Mjelde, Drees, & Way, 1990).
The knowledge of the factors influencing its adoption along with that of treatment thresholds would be valuable in targeting extension efforts and determining future research activities. The information available at the time of decision making is appropriate to use in analyzing producers ' decisions. Information on age and education level, size and complexity of operation and business organizational characteristics are used to ascertain if managerial style and underlying labor availability affect the adoption. The education relationship (EDUC) was negative. That is, those farmers with more than a high school education had a 22.5% lower probability of adopting the use of sweep nets and treatment thresholds than those with a high school education or less. A likely clarification for this behavior is that “higher educated producers perceive a greater return to their management and labor time elsewhere in their operation, and/ or the physical aspects of using a sweep net are unexciting or menial to such producers. Education has a significant but negative influence on technology adoption in the present study”. Researches shows that found that level of education had no effect on adoption of financial management technology (Harper, Rister, Mjelde, Drees, & Way, 1990).
The effect of globalization and technology appear to have urged smaller organizations from the world to hold ebusiness practices. Reasons behind adoption and non adoption in the smaller firm are “industry sector and firm level factors are analyzed, together with owner/manager motivations and attitudes towards ebusiness adoption. There is a range of internal and external factors which impact on ebusiness development of the smaller firm. Fundamental factors range from general macro level dimensions which impinge crosswise businesses of all sizes to specific micro level factors which impact on businesses employing less than ten people” (Fillis, Johannson, & Wagner, 2004).
The minor organizations share some universal attributes with its superior complements, such as the need for long term profitability. There are differences in approach towards implementing ebusiness in the minor firm because of central owner/manager factors not found in firms of other magnitudes. The researcher Theodore Levitt espoused the benefits of acceptance technology with the purpose to gain competitive benefits and capitalize on the opportunities coming from the globalization of business (Levitt, 1983).
Nowadays, “technology has advanced at a much faster rate than was previously anticipated; offering vast opportunities for immediate international market access (Coviello & McAuley, 1991). In spite of technology facilitating improved business practice in conditions of developing electronic markets, electronic data interchange and internet commerce (Whiteley, 2000). Issues like Leadership and waste management are ranked higher in importance than ecommerce issues by many SMEs”. If ebusiness offers the opportunity to amplify market share and long term Ebusiness adoption profitability, as well as providing a fairer environment where businesses of all sizes can compete more equally in the marketplace, then the reasons behind why many smaller firms have yet to embrace both the technology and the new business practice must be better understood. “One of the major benefits to adopting ebusiness in the smaller firm is the ability to access an information infrastructure which is much larger than that owned by many large corporations” (Fillis, Johannson, & Wagner, 2004). In adding up, technology also intensifies the ability of the smaller organization to communicate internally and externally to the similar extent as its larger complement. “Enhanced communication with customers, suppliers, business partners and competitors can result in new value-added products or services, or more importantly in this era of the knowledge economy, intellectual property and ideas being traded” (Leadbeater, 2000).
Because of lot extra flexible approach to doing business than the superior organization with its hierarchical layers of decision making, the smaller organization has the possible for gaining competitive benefit by being much faster and flexible in relating to the Internet (Durkin & McGowan, 2001).
“This would be expected that organizations connected to the information technology industry would have a higher level of uptake and usage of this technology than those not connected to the sector. The key stimuli at the back this adoption relay to the low cost and risks involved improved relationships with customers and suppliers, together with more control over distribution and marketing of products” (Fillis, Johannson, & Wagner, 2004).
“The wave model basically states that a firm’s tendency to adopt a technology at a certain point in time is positively influenced by the present level of distribution in the economy as a whole, or by the proportion of adopters in the industry or sector to which the specific firm is affiliated” (Geroski, 2000).
Competition; the adaptation of integrated communication technology might also be affected by product market circumstances below which organizations are operating, mainly the competitive pressure they are showing to. “In those markets where competition is fierce, demand elasticity’s can be expected to be higher because of the existence of close substitutes, thus driving firms to innovative activity or rapid technology adoption. In case of (small) open economies as Switzerland, international competition is a particularly valuable way of forcing firms to adopt the most efficient way of producing, or to for the time being evade competitive pressure through product innovations” (Hollenstein, 2004).
Technological opportunities and market scenarios; “Theoretical and empirical work has shown that market prospects and technological opportunities are important factors determining innovative activity. from the time when, from the firm’s point of view, the adoption of ICT is an innovation, we suppose that favorable market prospects and high technological opportunities exert a positive impact in case of adoption as well (Cohen, 1995).The last decade saw an remarkable increase of adoption not only of ICT but also of new work practices. It is therefore not amazing that the investigation of the impact of the two factors on variables such as efficiency and productivity as well as on labor and skill demand has become a prominent field of research” (Black & Lynch, 2000).
Mainly significant are “expected paybacks (mostly those dimensions reflecting market orientation and efficiency gains) and costs of adoption (in particular, investment costs as well as know-how deficiencies and managerial problems), the firm’s ability to absorb knowledge from other firms and institutions, technological opportunities, information spillovers from adopters to non adopters, experience with earlier vintages of a certain technology, (international) competitive pressure and firm size” (Hollenstein, 2004).
Now a day’s technology is going to become a significant tactical advantage for firms to get better their organizational performance and planned competitiveness (Nyheim, McFadden, & Connolly, 2004) (Siguaw, Enz, & Namasivayam, 2000). “The research on technology adoption and diffusion has strained a tremendous amount of attention from academic circles and business practitioners in the hospitality industry” (Heart & Pliskin, 2002) (Cline, 2001) and (Siguaw, Enz, & Namasivayam, 2000). Though, “adoption and diffusion of technology in organizations is a complex process affecting both internal and external business processes. An assessment of the literature in the field reveals that our knowledge in this area is either disjointed or case specific, limiting our understanding of the technology adoption behavior by hospitality organizations. As a consequence, there is a need to develop a theoretically knowledgeable framework that integrates the critical factors relevant to the hospitality industry. Yet, technology adoption by organizations has demonstrated unique characteristics calling for distinctive approaches in examining technology adoption behavior” (Wang & Qualls, 2007).
As the (Rogers, 2005) describes the “theory of the diffusion of innovation, innovation adoption is viewed as a process of ambiguity reduction and information gathering. Information as regards the characteristics and features of the innovation flows all the way through the social system to which the organizations as adopters belong. In addition, an examination of the in existence literature suggests that other factors such as organizational distinctiveness, environmental factors, as well as innovation characteristics are also significant in affecting adoption behavior. However, the influence of the various factors may not be the same in the technology adoption decision making process; in other words, some of the factors may play critical and direct roles while others may just serve as indirect indicators of the proposed relationships. Though, most of the earlier research assumes a linear relationship and does not explicitly maintain the possibility of any moderating influences on the relationship between perceptions and adoption behavior” (Wang & Qualls, 2007).
The factor perceived ease of utilize submit towards the level to which a possible client anticipates the objective structure to be free from error (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). Likewise, “perceived ease of adoption is defined as the quantity to which the prospective adopter expects the technology adopted will be free of efforts as regards the adoption process and utilization” (Phillips, Calantone, & Lee, 1994).
Perceived ease of adaptation can impact on the adaptation manners from the time when a modernism which is simple to adapt and implement can significantly decrease the “time and effort required investing in the project” and therefore, raise the possibility of adapting the technology. “In organizations, several stakeholders are pretentious by the change connected with technology adoption. There is a common organizational perception that, the less complicated the adoption of the technology is, the more likely that the adoption projects will be successfully accomplished and generate the expected results. In other words, perceived ease of adoption may also affect perceived benefits of adoption from the time when the adoption process might determine actual realization of the estimated outcome” (Wang & Qualls, 2007).
It is supposed that a firm with a higher amount of “technological knowledge and skills of the workers as a whole may decrease the resistance to the technology. Such organizations may be more accessible to technological change, and be more willing to adapt and integrate the technology into their daily business operations. Earlier research has exposed that organizations with higher level of technocratization develop exclusive cultures around their ability to accept new technology and change. These organizations are more willing to depart from existing practices in creating new products and/or processes through the use of new technologies” (Srinivasan, Gary, & Rangaswamy, 2002).
The exceeding arguments suggest that scope of firm’s technological environment (management maintenance, and technology financial plan) plays a significant part in an organization’s technology adaptation procedure. On the other hand, it is argued that “as to these factors are more likely to not directly affect the relationship between perception of technology and the adoption behavior as moderating variables”. The technology adopted is capable to have “different directions in its applications. Some technologies are more products oriented, while others are more process oriented. Product oriented technologies refer to those whose submission creates new products or services to meet up an external market or user need” (Wang & Qualls, 2007).
The Strategic point of reference imitates that “the strategic directions implemented by the firm to create the appropriate infrastructure and behavior for the continuing superior performance of the business (Narver & Slater, 1990). Earlier research suggests that strategic orientation acts as a method for sustaining an organization’s competitive advantage through identifying and responding to competitive forces and customer needs, therefore, strategic orientation is an organizational broad philosophy that serves to assist organizational innovation” (Han, Kim, & Srivastava, 1998).
In conditions of a firm’s inventive behavior, “a customer oriented firms can be defined as one with the aptitude and the will to identify, analyze, understand, and answer users’ needs. If a customer oriented organization identifies that using technology can improve customer service, it will provide more importance to the benefits of the technology and will also be more likely to adopt the technology” (Wang & Qualls, 2007).
As the similar time, “a competitor oriented organization will not be uncertain to adopt new technologies if their competitors are utilizing those technologies for a competitive advantage. Technological oriented hospitality organizations are also powerfully research oriented, are proactive in acquiring new technologies in the stipulation of their new products and services (Cooper R. , 1994) and thus will more likely to take advantage of the benefits technology may bring to the organization”.
As described by the (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990) while the demand or requirement is unsure due to changing consumers or changing inclinations among consumers, a customer point of reference is necessary to know about the customer’s needs and buying inducements. Thus, this is estimated that “customer oriented organizations will carry out more customer research prior to the decision to adopt certain technology as a marketing tool. Competitor oriented firms will be inclined to act according to pressures from their competitive environment and adopt technology as soon as they realize that their competitors will do so. On the other hand technologically oriented organizations will be the most innovative and they are typically the first to adopt technology innovations. Time and again, the driving force behind an organization’s strategic orientation can be a mixture of the three aspects previously elaborated, and such examples abound within and outside of the industry” (Wang & Qualls, 2007).
The A supplier’s marketing activity can considerably influence the possibility that a technology will be adopted by an organization (Frambach, 1993). “Diffusion research in different control points out that the significance of supply side factors in explaining the process of adoption and diffusion of technological innovations should be considered (Frambach, 1993). Technology acceptance process reflects the needs for the technology supplier to give assistance and guidance to the adopter throughout the implementation process. For instance, one vital factor affecting whether the new product presented by the supplier will be successful depends on the extent to which a supplier succeeds in meeting customer needs when offering a new product (Ford, 1988). Innovations adopted by firms ought to be implemented according to the adopter’s precise needs; hence, the innovation process in organizations is usually considered successful if it leads to implementation of the innovation and not just its adoption” (Gatignon & Robertson, 1989).
Changes in place of work practices, at the part of with growing distribution of computers, “may well have played a significant role in the recent rise in manufacturing productivity” (Black S. , 2004) companies that upgrade old technologies and at the same time provide strategic training are more productive than other technology adopters firms which, in rotate, are more productive than those who does not used latest technologies. In fact that strategic training for a technology is exact as that kind of training whose stipulation is more influenced by the technology; the findings indicate that the large number of firms provided that strategic training is following the accurate business strategies to implement the adopted technologies for the best consequences, at least, in terms of productivity and performance (Daniel A. D., 2010).
Other factors that influence the decisions of technology adoption or upgradation are like “perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, confidence and perceived net benefits”. This adoption of technology gives way to be more effective at local, regional and global basis. Many businesses small or large are adopting this technology to do more economic and efficient marketing, to get cost effective means for communication and efficient product sales transactions. Adopting the new technology as internet is necessary for the organizations that want to expend their businesses globally.
Accessibility in the sense of providing “24 hour access for branch offices, business contacts and shoppers, Utility in the way of competitive advantage for the marketers, Advertisement effectiveness” as to reach a diverse audience with varied objectives and Security are the factors for adoption of this technology (Paul, 1996).
New product launch is the one of the factors of new technology adoption. “A product upgrade often requires the availability of a new technology that enables more efficient production or a better product design that generates more revenue” (Li, 2009). Adoption of the new technology is to “improve their manufacturing performance in terms of cost, quality, and flexibility, in an effort to compete with other firms in the global marketplace”; these are all the factors for the upgradation of the technology. When evaluating the appropriateness of manufacturing technology, it may be essential to improve upon the technology, and naturally advanced manufacturing technology is seen as the best direction for improvement (Chuu, 2009). Driver for adopting that type of technology is "demand" considered the basic factor to go for the decision of adopting the new internet services. Customers utilize the Internet as corresponding channel and continue to rely on branches and call centers (Centeno, 2004). The technology development is also depended on the trend of technology. And what is planned by the government of that country (Wang Y. H., 2009).
In the issue of libraries author defines the competitor’s technology as a threat of disappearing from the market and emerging demands of the scholars and students as the drivers behind the upgradation of the technology. This issue first started from the European universities (Michael, 2009).

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN:

In our research of “identifying the factors for technology upgradation” we have to explore the factors that drive the organizations to take decisions about technology upgradation or adoption. So this is an exploratory type of study. Exploratory research conducted for a problem that has not been clearly defined. It helps determine the best research design, data collection method and selection of subjects. It draws definitive conclusions only with extreme caution. Given its fundamental nature, exploratory research often concludes that a perceived problem does not actually exist.
Exploratory research often relies on secondary research such as reviewing available literature and/or data, or qualitative approaches such as informal discussions with consumers, employees, management or competitors, and more formal approaches through in depth interviews, focus groups, projective methods, case studies or pilot studies. And in our study we are exploring the factors that that drive any organization towards the technology improvement or development in the form of technology upgradation or new technology adoption. We are investigating the impact of organizational factors, like production facilities, information technology level etc on the technology upgradation decisions. So this is an exploratory research.
3.2 POPULATION:

The population in this research is organizations or firms or all kind of manufacturing companies in Pakistan. Textile, leather, sports, fertilizers, medicine, furniture and rice mills are included in the population. And those manufacturing organizations should have adopted or upgraded the technology at least once in last 10 years. And the time frame for this is from 2000 to 2010.
3.3 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:

We are going to identify the factors and their importance that how they are playing a vital role in the technology upgradation decisions. For this we used the sampling technique of “cluster sampling”. Cluster sampling is a sampling technique in which, in the first stage a sample of areas is chosen; in the second stage a sample of respondents within those areas is selected. This process reduces the cost of sampling also. For cluster sampling it doesn’t need of sampling frame before.
So we have chosen the cluster technique. First we selected the big area from Pakistan the Punjab province and then the cities from that area. Muzaffargarh, Lahore, Multan, Sialkot, Chiniot and Faisalabad are selected for research.
3.3.1 Sample Size:
Sample size 50 is decided for this research. We have collected the data from 50 organizations all over the Punjab from selected cities. As sample was not decided for each city but minimum requirement were 5 organizations from each city and maximum 10 organizations from each city. So the data was collected from 50 respondents of 6 cities for our research to get reliable and consistent results.
3.3.2 Sampling Unit:
Individual Company. (As a one respondent)
3.3.3 Extent:
Manufacturing organizations of Pakistan.
3.4 RESEARCH TOOL:
3.4.1 Survey Method:
The research tools we used in this research are survey. The survey research method is considered to be the most common method of collecting primary data. It involves the systematic gathering of information from respondents. A constraint in this research tool is the extent to which respondents are willing and able to provide the desired data. However this can be minimized with the carefully designing the questionnaire and ensuring its proper implementation. So we used this type of tool as we need the quantitative and qualitative data for our research.
3.4.2 Questionnaire:
For this type of research tool we used the questionnaire. We used the Likert type questionnaire of scale 5 from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. We used personal interviews to determine the factors for the questionnaire. The questionnaire also contains some open ended questions that identify the factor for their technology upgradation. So the research tools gathering both type of data qualitative as well as quantitative.

3.5 DATA COLLECTION:

Data was collected through questionnaires, that questionnaires were filled by personal interviews, delivered to the companies and also through emails. Main response is through personal meetings in which questionnaires are filled directly. It seems to be an easy way or source of collecting data but time and cost has to manage there in this method.
Data was collected from the 6 cities (Lahore, Muzaffargarh, Multan, Chiniot, Sialkot and Faisalabad) of Punjab Provence of Pakistan. And data is collected from different manufacturing organization including textile, leather, rice, sports goods, furniture, tantage, fertilizer and poultry feed.

CHAPTER 4ANALYSIS4.1 STATISTICS: | | | Age of Organization | Technology upgraded | N | Valid | 50 | 50 | | Missing | 0 | 0 | Mean | 1.1000 | 2.5400 | Std. Deviation | .30305 | .67643 | Variance | .092 | .458 | Minimum | 1.00 | 1.00 | Maximum | 2.00 | 3.00 |
Table 1

Most of the respondents firms are more than 10 years old. And also have the experience of technology upgradation more than one time. 1.10 value of mean of age of the organization showing the response closer to the option (1=more than 10 years) and .3030 value of the std. Deviation is showing the less variation in the responses.
Most of the organization up graded the technology 1 to two times. The mean value 2.54 showing that responses are closer to the option (3=1 to 2 times) that means 1 to 2 times technology upgradation and value of standard deviation .6743 showing less variation in responses.

Age of Organization | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | 10 or more | 45 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 90.0 | | 5 to 9 | 5 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 2

Here analyzing separately we found that 90% respondent’s firm are having age more than 10 years. And 10% firms are 5 to 9 years old. As the data is collected from the organizations that have adopted or upgraded the technology in last 10 years at least once. So the age of the firms is high from the respondents.

Technology upgraded | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | More than 5 times | 5 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | | 3 to 5 times | 13 | 26.0 | 26.0 | 36.0 | | 1 to 2 times | 32 | 64.0 | 64.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 3

Results shows that 64% firms adopted the new technology or upgraded the old one 1 to 2 times in last 10 years. And 26% up graded 3 to 5 times. In Pakistan these results shows that organizations having less interest or not considering the factors that involved in the upgradation or adoption of the technology.

4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: | | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation | Variance | | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Customer Demand | 50 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.6600 | .55733 | .311 | Manufacturing Productivity | 49 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.6327 | .52812 | .279 | Quality Improvement | 49 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.5102 | .54476 | .297 | Flexibility | 47 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.4255 | .65091 | .424 | Ease of use | 50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.2800 | .67128 | .451 | Product Development | 49 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.6122 | .67133 | .451 | Education of Management | 49 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.1224 | .72551 | .526 | training of Employees | 49 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.0612 | .68945 | .475 | Customer Pressure | 50 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.8000 | .45175 | .204 | Public Pressure | 46 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 3.0435 | .89335 | .798 | Shareholder Pressure | 46 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.0000 | .84327 | .711 | Government Pressure | 46 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.4565 | .91181 | .831 | Supplier Pressure | 46 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.1304 | 1.12761 | 1.271 | Perceived Benefits | 50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.4000 | .63888 | .408 | Confidence of Management | 50 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.4000 | .57143 | .327 | Competitive Advantage | 50 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.7400 | .48697 | .237 | Gap of firm’s machinery and new technology | 50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.0000 | .83299 | .694 | Personal characteristics | 50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.4400 | .67491 | .456 | Communication Cost | 38 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.2105 | .70358 | .495 | Production Cost | 48 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 4.7292 | .44909 | .202 | Sales Cost | 41 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.2439 | .73418 | .539 | Access to Information | 50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.1800 | .69076 | .477 | Competence | 50 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.3200 | .65278 | .426 | Change trend of Technology | 50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.3600 | .80204 | .643 | Being Global | 50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.4400 | .73290 | .537 | Availability of Resources | 50 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.2600 | .48697 | .237 | Quality of Resources | 50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.1200 | .74615 | .557 | Partner Alliance | 50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 3.5800 | .81039 | .657 | Level of IT use | 50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.1000 | .88641 | .786 |
(Above)Table 4

As seeing the table above, we got findings that customer demand, production cost and competitive advantage are the variables having more mean then other variables and less standard deviation. So we can say that these variables (customer pressure, production cost and competitive advantage) are more important to consider in technology upgradation or new technology adoption’s decisions. Results also show that these variables are having the minimum variance overall. Now we see the all variables response one by one.

4.3 SEPARATE VARIABLE ANALYSIS:

Customer Demand | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Neutral | 2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | | Agree | 13 | 26.0 | 26.0 | 30.0 | | Strongly Agree | 35 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 5

For the customer demand, 70% people said they are strongly agreed that customer demand is important factor behind the upgradation of the technology and 26% are agreed. Results show that no one is denying from the importance of the customer demand factor. As the customer views are considered valuable in the decision making process for the technology upgradation or adaptation.

Manufacturing Productivity | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Neutral | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Agree | 16 | 32.0 | 32.7 | 34.7 | | Strongly Agree | 32 | 64.0 | 65.3 | 100.0 | | Total | 49 | 98.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 2.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 6

With the mean of 4.63 and less variation in the results about 64% respondents are strongly agreed that the manufacturing productivity enhancement is a factor in technology upgradation decisions to be considered as important. And thirty two percent respondents are agreed.
2% respondents are neutral about this as an important factor for the technology upgradation.

Quality Improvement | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Neutral | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Agree | 22 | 44.0 | 44.9 | 46.9 | | Strongly Agree | 26 | 52.0 | 53.1 | 100.0 | | Total | 49 | 98.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 2.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 7

With the mean value 2.51 and .54 deviation 52% respondents are strongly agreed that the quality improvement of the product is important factor for the technology upgradation or for adoption of the new technology. 44% respondents are agreed and 2% are neutral.

Flexibility | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.1 | | Neutral | 1 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 4.3 | | Agree | 22 | 44.0 | 46.8 | 51.1 | | Strongly Agree | 23 | 46.0 | 48.9 | 100.0 | | Total | 47 | 94.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 3 | 6.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 8

46% respondents strongly agreed that flexibility in production is an important factor for which the technology is upgraded or adopted by the organizations. And 44% respondents are agreed for this. With high value of mean 4.42 and less deviation this is an important factor.

Ease of use | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Neutral | 3 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | | Agree | 27 | 54.0 | 54.0 | 62.0 | | Strongly Agree | 19 | 38.0 | 38.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 9

54% of the respondents are agreed that ease of use in production process is an important factor behind the decision of upgradation. 38% respondents are strongly agreed that the ease of use in the production is important factor. As the mean of this factor is 4.28 and less deviation of .67, that shows the there is less variation in the results.

Product Development | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Neutral | 2 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 6.1 | | Agree | 12 | 24.0 | 24.5 | 30.6 | | Strongly Agree | 34 | 68.0 | 69.4 | 100.0 | | Total | 49 | 98.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 2.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 10

As 68% respondents are strongly agreed that the product development is the one of the important driver for the technology upgradation and adoption. And the mean is 4.61 that is showing the great value and less variation.

Education of Management | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 2 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.1 | | Neutral | 4 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 12.2 | | Agree | 29 | 58.0 | 59.2 | 71.4 | | Strongly Agree | 14 | 28.0 | 28.6 | 100.0 | | Total | 49 | 98.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 2.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 11

Among respondents 58% are agreed and 28% are strongly agreed that education of the management is involved in the decision making of the technology upgradation. The mean value of education of management variable is 4.12 and value of standard deviation .72 is showing that there is less variation in the responses.

Training of Employees | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Neutral | 10 | 20.0 | 20.4 | 20.4 | | Agree | 26 | 52.0 | 53.1 | 73.5 | | Strongly Agree | 13 | 26.0 | 26.5 | 100.0 | | Total | 49 | 98.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 2.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 12

26% respondents are strongly agreed that the training to the employees having the effect on the technology adoption and upgradation. And 52% respondents are agreed where as the 20% respondents are neutral about this factor.

Customer Pressure | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Neutral | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Agree | 8 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 18.0 | | Strongly Agree | 41 | 82.0 | 82.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 13

Among the pressures customer’s pressure is considered as a very important factor behind the adoption or upgradation of the technology as the 82% respondents are strongly agreed and 26% respondents are agreed about its importance.

Public Pressure | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 15 | 30.0 | 32.6 | 32.6 | | Neutral | 16 | 32.0 | 34.8 | 67.4 | | Agree | 13 | 26.0 | 28.3 | 95.7 | | Strongly Agree | 2 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 100.0 | | Total | 46 | 92.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 4 | 8.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 14

About 30% respondents are disagreed that the public pressure is a factor behind the adoption of the technology. And 32% people are neutral about this factor. The mean value of this factor is 3.04 showing the less importance to the public pressure as compare to the customer’s pressure.

Shareholder Pressure | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Strongly disagree | 2 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.3 | | Disagree | 9 | 18.0 | 19.6 | 23.9 | | Neutral | 23 | 46.0 | 50.0 | 73.9 | | Agree | 11 | 22.0 | 23.9 | 97.8 | | Strongly Agree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 100.0 | | Total | 46 | 92.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 4 | 8.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 15

There is a diverse response of people about this factor. Most of them about 46% respondents are neutral about this factor’s importance in decision making for the upgradation of technology or adoption of it. Remaining 18% are disagreed that shareholders have any effect on the technology upgradation. Although, remaining 22% respondents considered the effect of shareholder’s pressure on the technology upgradation.

Government Pressure | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Strongly disagree | 8 | 16.0 | 17.4 | 17.4 | | Disagree | 13 | 26.0 | 28.3 | 45.7 | | Neutral | 22 | 44.0 | 47.8 | 93.5 | | Agree | 2 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 97.8 | | Strongly Agree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 100.0 | | Total | 46 | 92.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 4 | 8.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 16

Same as the shareholder’s pressure the factor of government pressure is also considered not much important in technology upgradation decisions. 44% respondents are neutral about government’s pressure on technology adoption and 22% disagree. While 16% respondents are strongly disagree about the government pressure on technology upgradation.

Supplier Pressure | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Strongly disagree | 5 | 10.0 | 10.9 | 10.9 | | Disagree | 7 | 14.0 | 15.2 | 26.1 | | Neutral | 15 | 30.0 | 32.6 | 58.7 | | Agree | 15 | 30.0 | 32.6 | 91.3 | | Strongly Agree | 4 | 8.0 | 8.7 | 100.0 | | Total | 46 | 92.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 4 | 8.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 17

There is a very diverse response on supplier pressure as a factor of technology upgradation. 30% respondents are neutral and 30% respondents are agreed that suppliers have an effect on the technology adoption decisions. While 14% are disagreed and 10% are strongly disagreed to give any importance to supplier’s pressure as a driver of technology upgradation. There also a large amount of respondents that didn’t respond to the question, that is about 8%.

Perceived Benefits | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Neutral | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | | Agree | 25 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 54.0 | | Strongly Agree | 23 | 46.0 | 46.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 18

There is 50% of respondents agreed and 46% are strongly agreed that there are some perceived benefits for up grading the technology. Remaining 2% are disagreed and 2% are neutral about the perceived benefits considering as a factor for technology adoption.

Confidence of Management | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Neutral | 2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | | Agree | 26 | 52.0 | 52.0 | 56.0 | | Strongly Agree | 22 | 44.0 | 44.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 19

Among 52% respondents are agreed and 44% are strongly agreed that confidence of the management matters in the upgradation or adoption of the technology. Mean value 4.40 is showing the strong position of the confidence of management with a smaller variation (.57) in the responses.

Competitive Advantage | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Neutral | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Agree | 11 | 22.0 | 22.0 | 24.0 | | Strongly Agree | 38 | 76.0 | 76.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 20

About 76% respondents are strongly agreed that the upgradation of the technology as a competitive advantage having great importance. Remaining 22% respondents are agreed for this importance. And 2% are neutral. The mean value is 4.70 showing the relevance of this factor with smaller variation of (.57).

Gap of firm’s machinery and new technology | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | | Neutral | 11 | 22.0 | 22.0 | 26.0 | | Agree | 22 | 44.0 | 44.0 | 70.0 | | Strongly Agree | 15 | 30.0 | 30.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 21

Here 44% of respondents are agreed and 30% are strongly agreed that one reason behind the upgradation of the technology or adopting the new one is the gap or difference between the firm’s machinery and the new trend of technology. While 22% respondents are neutral about the importance of this gap of the firm’s existing technology and new state of art.

Personal characteristics | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Neutral | 2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | | Agree | 21 | 42.0 | 42.0 | 48.0 | | Strongly Agree | 26 | 52.0 | 52.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 22

Among the respondents 52% are strongly agreed and 42% are agreed that the personal characteristics of owners or management are important and having a great effect on the decisions of technology upgradation. While 2% are disagreed and 4% are neutral.

Communication Cost | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.6 | 2.6 | | Neutral | 3 | 6.0 | 7.9 | 10.5 | | Agree | 21 | 42.0 | 55.3 | 65.8 | | Strongly Agree | 13 | 26.0 | 34.2 | 100.0 | | Total | 38 | 76.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 12 | 24.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 23

There 42% respondents are agreed and 26% are strongly agreed that the due to decrease in communication cost firms adopt the new technology or upgrade it. While 2% are disagreed and 6% are neutral. 12 people as a ratio of 6% didn’t responded to this question.

Production Cost | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Agree | 13 | 26.0 | 27.1 | 27.1 | | Strongly Agree | 35 | 70.0 | 72.9 | 100.0 | | Total | 48 | 96.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 2 | 4.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 24

In this table 76% respondents are strongly agreed that the decrease in the variable production cost is the biggest reason behind the upgradation or adoption of the technology. And remaining 26% are agreed on this importance. No one is disagreeing that this is an important factor for technology upgradation decisions. Mean value is 4.72 which is near to strongly agree and small value of deviation .44 is showing the less variation of responses.

Sales Cost | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.4 | | Neutral | 4 | 8.0 | 9.8 | 12.2 | | Agree | 20 | 40.0 | 48.8 | 61.0 | | Strongly Agree | 16 | 32.0 | 39.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 41 | 82.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 9 | 18.0 | | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | | |
Table 25

Here 32% respondents are strongly agreed and 40% are agreed that the decrease in the sales cost is the factor behind the technology upgradation having the great importance. While 8% are neutral about sales cost importance in decisions of technology adoption.

Access to Information | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | | Neutral | 2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | | Agree | 31 | 62.0 | 62.0 | 70.0 | | Strongly Agree | 15 | 30.0 | 30.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 26

62% respondents are agreed and 30% respondents are strongly agreed that the access to the information is the critical factor for the consideration in decisions of technology upgradation. Remaining 4% are neutral and 4% are disagreed.

Competence | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Neutral | 5 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | | Agree | 24 | 48.0 | 48.0 | 58.0 | | Strongly Agree | 21 | 42.0 | 42.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 27

There are 42% respondents who responded that competence is an important factor in technology upgradation and 48% respondents are agreed. Remaining 10% are neutral. This results show that the capability of managing the new technology is a critical factor behind the upgradation of technology.

Change trend of Technology | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Neutral | 7 | 14.0 | 14.0 | 16.0 | | Agree | 15 | 30.0 | 30.0 | 46.0 | | Strongly Agree | 27 | 54.0 | 54.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 28

About 30% respondents are agreed and 54% are strongly agreed that the changing trend of the technology is one of the drivers for technology upgradation or adoption, while 14% respondents are neutral.

Being Global | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Neutral | 4 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 10.0 | | Agree | 17 | 34.0 | 34.0 | 44.0 | | Strongly Agree | 28 | 56.0 | 56.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 29

34% respondents are agreed and 56% are strongly agreed that the firms adopt new technology or upgrade pervious one as they want to become global firm. It is an important factor behind technology adoption.

Availability of Resources | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Neutral | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Agree | 35 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 72.0 | | Strongly Agree | 14 | 28.0 | 28.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 30

Here 70% of the respondents are agreed that if the resources are available then firms adopt the technology. And 28% are strongly agreed that this is the important factor behind the adoption of the technology or up grading it that new technology is available easily.

Quality of Resources | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | Neutral | 8 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 18.0 | | Agree | 25 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 68.0 | | Strongly Agree | 16 | 32.0 | 32.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 31

The 50% of the respondents are agreed that the quality of the informational resources matter in case of technology upgradation. 32% are strongly agreed and only 2% are neutral.

Partner Alliance | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 4 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | | Neutral | 19 | 38.0 | 38.0 | 46.0 | | Agree | 21 | 42.0 | 42.0 | 88.0 | | Strongly Agree | 6 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 32

In this table 42% respondents are agreed that the partner’s alliance is a factor behind the decisions of up grading or adopting the technology, while 38% are neutral. 3.58 mean value showing that the respondents are near to neutral.

Level of IT use | | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Disagree | 2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | | Neutral | 11 | 22.0 | 22.0 | 26.0 | | Agree | 17 | 34.0 | 34.0 | 60.0 | | Strongly Agree | 20 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 50 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Table 33

There 34% respondents are agreed and 40% are strongly agreed that the level of IT used on the organization is a factor behind the upgradation or adoption of the technology. As the level of technology is high in the organization they have to come it change with the changing trend of technology. And 22% respondents are neutral about this factor.

4.4 CROSSTABS:

By the values of mean we have identified that some of these factors are important where the mean is high (as mean value near to 5= strongly agree) and the standard deviation is low. They are: Descriptive Statistics | | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Customer Demand | 50 | 4.6600 | .55733 | Manufacturing Productivity | 49 | 4.6327 | .52812 | Quality Improvement | 49 | 4.5102 | .54476 | Product Development | 49 | 4.6122 | .67133 | Customer Pressure | 50 | 4.8000 | .45175 | Perceived Benefits | 50 | 4.4000 | .63888 | Confidence of Management | 50 | 4.4000 | .57143 | Competitive Advantage | 50 | 4.7400 | .48697 | Personal characteristics | 50 | 4.4400 | .67491 | Production Cost | 48 | 4.7292 | .44909 | Being Global | 50 | 4.4400 | .73290 | Table 34
Now there are 11 main variables or factors that are considered by the respondents as most important for the decision making for the technology upgradation or adoption. Now we will see the response of the respondents on city basis. To judge that is there any differentiation of responses according to the location. That will show the impact of location on the technology adoption decisions.

City and Customer Demand | | | Customer Demand | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | | Multan | 1 | 1 | 6 | 8 | | Sialkot | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 | | Lahore | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 | | Chiniot | 0 | 4 | 6 | 10 | | Faisalabad | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | Total | 2 | 13 | 35 | 50 |

Table 35

As the results show that Sialkot’s respondents are strongly agreed that customer demand is a critical factor for technology upgradation. And also the Lahore, Chiniot and Faisalabad showing strongly agreed response for customer demand. On the other hand Multan and Muzaffargarh to some extent are neutral.

City and Manufacturing Productivity | | | Manufacturing Productivity | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 0 | 2 | 6 | 8 | | Multan | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 | | Sialkot | 0 | 4 | 4 | 8 | | Lahore | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 | | Chiniot | 0 | 2 | 8 | 10 | | Faisalabad | 1 | 5 | 3 | 9 | Total | 1 | 16 | 32 | 49 |
Table 36

Here the results from Chiniot are more toward strongly agreed that manufacturing productivity enhancement is an important factor for the technology upgradation. After that Multan and Muzaffargarh are showing high results.

City and Quality Improvement | | | Quality Improvement | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 | | Multan | 0 | 3 | 5 | 8 | | Sialkot | 0 | 2 | 6 | 8 | | Lahore | 0 | 4 | 3 | 7 | | Chiniot | 0 | 7 | 2 | 9 | | Faisalabad | 0 | 1 | 8 | 9 | Total | 1 | 22 | 26 | 49 |
Table 37

Faisalabad and Sialkot cities are showing highly agreed results for technology adoption for quality improvement, Then the Multan city. Where the quality response is more there was more international export organizations. So the exporter firms more careful about quality.

City and Product Development | | | Product Development | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 | | Multan | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 | | Sialkot | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 8 | | Lahore | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 | | Chiniot | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 10 | | Faisalabad | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9 | Total | 1 | 2 | 12 | 34 | 49 |
Table 38

For the product development factor, the firms from Muzaffargarh more responded strongly agreed as compare to other cities. Then from Multan, Lahore and Chiniot we are having the similar results.

City and Customer Pressure | | | Customer Pressure | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 | | Multan | 1 | 0 | 7 | 8 | | Sialkot | 0 | 2 | 6 | 8 | | Lahore | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | | Chiniot | 0 | 3 | 7 | 10 | | Faisalabad | 0 | 2 | 7 | 9 | Total | 1 | 8 | 41 | 50 |

Table 39

Muzaffargarh, Multan, Lahore and Faisalabad all are showing equal results for customer’s pressure. It indicates that location is not a factor that influences the technology adoption or upgradation decisions.

City and Perceived Benefits | | | Perceived Benefits | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 8 | | Multan | 0 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 | | Sialkot | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 8 | | Lahore | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | | Chiniot | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 10 | | Faisalabad | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | Total | 1 | 1 | 25 | 23 | 50 |
Table 40

Sialkot, Chiniot and Faisalabad are showing high results for the consideration of perceived benefits for the technology adoption decisions where the Lahore is showing the highest results for the importance of this factor for technology upgradation. This result shows the knowledge or perceiving of benefits by the respondents.

City and Confidence of Management | | | Confidence of Management | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 0 | 5 | 3 | 8 | | Multan | 2 | 5 | 1 | 8 | | Sialkot | 0 | 7 | 1 | 8 | | Lahore | 0 | 3 | 4 | 7 | | Chiniot | 0 | 2 | 8 | 10 | | Faisalabad | 0 | 4 | 5 | 9 | Total | 2 | 26 | 22 | 50 |
Table 41

Respondents from the Chiniot have given high response towards the confidence of management as a factor for technology decisions. Then Lahore and Faisalabad are strongly agreed and then Sialkot, Multan and Muzaffargarh respectively.

City and Competitive Advantage | | | Competitive Advantage | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 0 | 5 | 3 | 8 | | Multan | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 | | Sialkot | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | | Lahore | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | | Chiniot | 0 | 2 | 8 | 10 | | Faisalabad | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9 | Total | 1 | 11 | 38 | 50 |
Table 42

Respondents from Sialkot and Chiniot then Lahore and Multan have given strongly agreed response towards competitive advantage, that upgradation of technology give a competitive advantage to the firm over the competitors. These cities are dealing more in international exports so they taking it in competition as compare to Muzaffargarh.

City and Personal characteristics | | | Personal characteristics | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 8 | | Multan | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 8 | | Sialkot | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 | | Lahore | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 | | Chiniot | 1 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 10 | | Faisalabad | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 9 | Total | 1 | 2 | 21 | 26 | 50 |
Table 43

From Lahore, Chiniot and Faisalabad responses are very high about personal characteristics of owner’s or management that these are involved in the technology upgradation or adoption decisions. Respondents from other cities also consider this factor to some extent. Respondents also from Multan and Muzaffargarh agreed that the owner’s personal characteristics involve in the decisions of technology upgradation.

City and Production Cost | | | Production Cost | Total | | | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 6 | 2 | 8 | | Multan | 1 | 7 | 8 | | Sialkot | 1 | 6 | 7 | | Lahore | 1 | 6 | 7 | | Chiniot | 2 | 7 | 9 | | Faisalabad | 2 | 7 | 9 | Total | 13 | 35 | 48 |
Table 44

As the findings show that location is not a factor that influences the choice of production cost variable. All the respondents from different cities given the response that decrease in production cost is a critical factor behind the adoption of the technology or upgradation.

City and Being Global | | | Being Global | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | city | Muzaffargarh | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8 | | Multan | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 8 | | Sialkot | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 8 | | Lahore | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 | | Chiniot | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 10 | | Faisalabad | 0 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 9 | Total | 1 | 4 | 17 | 28 | 50 |
Table 45

Respondents from the Multan, Lahore, Chiniot and Muzaffargarh given the highly agreed response to the factor of being global as compare to the Sialkot and Faisalabad. Results show that among these cities there is more international competition. So they are agreed toward being an international organization.

4.5 TECHNOLOGY ADOPTED:

Now we are going to analyze that what are response of the respondents about these listed factors, as respondents have up graded the technology different times, then is it has any impact on the selection of importance to these factors. Like organizations upgraded or adopted the technology so many times in pervious ten years give so much importance to product development factor as in their decision making this product development factor played a critical role.

Technology upgraded and Customer Demand | | | Customer Demand | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | | 3 to 5 times | 0 | 2 | 11 | 13 | | 1 to 2 times | 1 | 10 | 21 | 32 | Total | 2 | 13 | 35 | 50 |

Table 46

As the results show that who upgraded the technology 1 to 2 times are more responses towards the customer demand. Most of the organizations upgraded the technology for 1 or two times in last 10 years and these all considered the customer demand as a critical factor for the decision making for the technology upgradation or adoption.

Technology upgraded and Manufacturing Productivity | | | Manufacturing Productivity | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | | 3 to 5 times | 0 | 6 | 7 | 13 | | 1 to 2 times | 1 | 8 | 23 | 32 | Total | 1 | 16 | 32 | 49 |

Table 47

Here again the organization which upgraded technology for 1 or 2 times give importance to the manufacturing productivty enhancement. And other organizations which upgraded or adopted the technology for 3 to 5 times in last 10 years also cosderering the productivity improvement as an important factor.

Technology upgraded and Quality Improvement | | | Quality Improvement | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 | | 3 to 5 times | 1 | 5 | 6 | 12 | | 1 to 2 times | 0 | 14 | 18 | 32 | Total | 1 | 22 | 26 | 49 |
Table 48

Organization adopted the new technology 1 to 2 times in last 10 years consider quality improvement a benefit of the technology upgradation that impact the technology adoption decisions.

Technology upgraded and Product Development | | | Product Development | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | | 3 to 5 times | 0 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 13 | | 1 to 2 times | 1 | 1 | 9 | 21 | 32 | Total | 1 | 2 | 12 | 34 | 49 |
Table 49

Firms up graded the technology for 1 to 2 times give importance to the product development. And firms adopted the technology 3 to 5 times also strongly agreed that due to development of product firms have to change the technology.

Technology upgraded and Customer Pressure | | | Customer Pressure | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | | 3 to 5 times | 1 | 1 | 11 | 13 | | 1 to 2 times | 0 | 7 | 25 | 32 | Total | 1 | 8 | 41 | 50 |
Table 50

The firms upgraded the technology for how many times are strongly agreed that the customer pressure is a critical factor which involve in the decision making process for the technology adoption or upgradation.

Technology upgraded and Perceived Benefits | | | Perceived Benefits | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | | 3 to 5 times | 0 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 13 | | 1 to 2 times | 1 | 0 | 17 | 14 | 32 | Total | 1 | 1 | 25 | 23 | 50 |
Table 51

Firms adopted the technology 1 to 2 times given the importance to the perceived benefits regarding technology adoption much more. And the organizations adopted new technology more than 5 times also considered it an important reason for technology upgradation.

Technology upgraded and Confidence of Management | | | Confidence of Management | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | | 3 to 5 times | 0 | 5 | 8 | 13 | | 1 to 2 times | 1 | 19 | 12 | 32 | Total | 2 | 26 | 22 | 50 |
Table 52

Firms adopted the technology 1 to 2 times given the importance to the confidence of the management much more. And the organizations adopted new technology more than 5 times also considered it an important reason for technology upgradation.

Technology upgraded and Competitive Advantage | | | Competitive Advantage | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | | 3 to 5 times | 0 | 1 | 12 | 13 | | 1 to 2 times | 1 | 8 | 23 | 32 | Total | 1 | 11 | 38 | 50 |
Table 53

Here again the organization which upgraded technology for 1 or 2 times give importance to the manufacturing productivty enhancement. And other organizations which upgraded or adopted the technology for 3 to 5 times in last 10 years also cosderering the productivity improvement as an important factor.

Here again the organization which upgraded technology for 1 or 2 times give importance to the competition and up grading the technology take as an competitive advantage. And other organizations which upgraded or adopted the technology for 3 to 5 times in last 10 years also cosderering the competition as an important factor.

Technology upgraded and Personal characteristics | | | Personal characteristics | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 5 | | 3 to 5 times | 0 | 0 | 5 | 8 | 13 | | 1 to 2 times | 1 | 2 | 12 | 17 | 32 | Total | 1 | 2 | 21 | 26 | 50 |
Table 54

The firms upgraded the technology for how many times are strongly agreed that the personal characteristics of the owner and managers is a critical factor which involve in the decision making process for the technology adoption or upgradation.

Technology upgraded and Production Cost | | | Production Cost | Total | | | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 3 | 1 | 4 | | 3 to 5 times | 3 | 9 | 12 | | 1 to 2 times | 7 | 25 | 32 | Total | 13 | 35 | 48 |
Table 55

Firms adopted the technology 1 to 2 times given the importance to the production cost much more. And the organizations adopted new technology more than 5 times or 3 to 5 times also considered it an important reason for technology upgradation.

Technology upgraded and Being Global | | | Being Global | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Technology upgraded | More than 5 times | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | | 3 to 5 times | 0 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 13 | | 1 to 2 times | 1 | 2 | 14 | 15 | 32 | Total | 1 | 4 | 17 | 28 | 50 |
Table 56

As the results show that who upgraded the technology 1 to 2 times are more responses towards the factor want to be global. Most of the organizations upgraded the technology for 1 or two times in last 10 years and these all considered the to be a global organization is a critical factor for the decision making for the technology upgradation or adoption.

Now we have analysis of the factors with age of the organization:

Age of Organization and Customer Demand | | | Customer Demand | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 1 | 12 | 32 | 45 | | 5 to 9 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | Total | 2 | 13 | 35 | 50 |
Table 57

Respondent organizations having the age more than 10 years considered more important the customer demand factor for the upgradation of the technology. They respond strongly agreed to the customer demand. And remaining firms are agreed.

Age of Organization and Manufacturing Productivity | | | Manufacturing Productivity | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 1 | 16 | 28 | 45 | | 5 to 9 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | Total | 1 | 16 | 32 | 49 |
Table 58

There again the firms older than 10 years strongly agreed that the manufacturing productivity is a critical factor for the deciding about the technology upgradation or technology adoption.

Age of Organization and Quality Improvement | | | Quality Improvement | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 1 | 18 | 25 | 44 | | 5 to 9 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 5 | Total | 1 | 22 | 26 | 49 |
Table 59

The organizations having age more than 10 years are more agreed that quality improvement is very important and a critical factor behind technology upgradation or adaptation process. And a minimum number of respondent from the organization age minimum to 10 years agreed that this is an important factor.

Age of Organization and Product Development | | | Product Development | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 1 | 2 | 11 | 31 | 45 | | 5 to 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | Total | 1 | 2 | 12 | 34 | 49 |
Table 60

Here the ratio of the responses from companies having age more than 10 years is more of strongly agreed. Other 11 are agreed and 3 from age 5 to 9 years are strongly agreed. Only one from the respondent is disagree that product development is not an important factor for technology upgradation decisions.

Age of Organization and Customer Pressure | | | Customer Pressure | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 1 | 8 | 36 | 45 | | 5 to 9 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | Total | 1 | 8 | 41 | 50 |
Table 61

The firms that are established from 10 years or more are strongly agreed that customer pressure is an important driver that drives organization to the technology adoption or upgradation decisions. And reaming is agreed that customer pressure matters.

Age of Organization and Perceived Benefits | | | Perceived Benefits | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 1 | 0 | 23 | 21 | 45 | | 5 to 9 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | Total | 1 | 1 | 25 | 23 | 50 |
Table 62

Firms are older than 10 years are agreed that the perceived benefits that come from technology upgradation or adoption are factor that drives the organization towards the technology adoption or upgradation decisions. And remaining is agreed toward the importance of this factor.

Age of Organization and Confidence of Management | | | Confidence of Management | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 1 | 25 | 19 | 45 | | 5 to 9 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | Total | 2 | 26 | 22 | 50 |
Table 63

Organizations more than 10 years old give high importance to the confidence of the management. And approximately all organizations are agreed and strongly agreed that confidence of the management plays an important role in adopting the new technology or upgrading the previous one.

Age of Organization and Competitive Advantage | | | Competitive Advantage | Total | | | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 1 | 10 | 34 | 45 | | 5 to 9 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 | Total | 1 | 11 | 38 | 50 |
Table 64

Firms that older more than 10 years are strongly agreed that due to completion organizations upgrade their technology or adopt new one. And others having the same age of firm are agreed. Firms 5 to 9 years old are also agreed that this is an important driver for technology adoption.

Age of Organization and Personal characteristics | | | Personal characteristics | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 1 | 2 | 19 | 23 | 45 | | 5 to 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | Total | 1 | 2 | 21 | 26 | 50 |
Table 65

Firms are older than 10 years are strongly agreed that the personal characteristics or capabilities of the management or owner are factor that drives the organization towards the technology adoption or upgradation decisions; as the competence of the organization and management is much important in this kind of decisions about technology adoption. And remaining is agreed toward the importance of this factor.

Age of Organization and Production Cost | | | Production Cost | Total | | | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 13 | 30 | 43 | | 5 to 9 | 0 | 5 | 5 | Total | 13 | 35 | 48 |
Table 66

Decrease of variable production cost is major factor that drives the organizations toward the upgradation of the technology. Organizations 10 years or more older are strongly agreed by this statement. And others are agreed. The firm’s 5 to 9 years old are also agreed that importance of this factor has to be considered.

Age of Organization and Being Global | | | Being Global | Total | | | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | | Age of Organization | 10 or more | 1 | 4 | 16 | 24 | 45 | | 5 to 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 | Total | 1 | 4 | 17 | 28 | 50 |
Table 67

Firms 10 or more than 10 years old have much intensity to become global and most of them are strongly agreed that due to the factor to be global and for global competition firms adopt or upgrade the technology. And others are agreed for this. Organization having age of 5 to 9 years are also strongly agreed that desire of being global is important driver for the firms that drives them to adopt or upgrade the technology.

4.6 FACTOR ANALYSIS:

Factor analysis is the procedure for the reduction of the factors or variables. And to see that how much the factors are influencing the related factor or the set of the measurement. The factor analysis in our research is measuring the impact of the specific factor in the set of factors. By reducing the factor and giving the value of that factor. It also shows the variance of the factor in that set of variables. And then the rotated matrix which shows the correlation between the each survey item and the selected factors. By the Eigen value one this factor analysis shows the result of important factors.

Total Variance Explained | Component | Initial Eigen values | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | 1 | 6.466 | 22.297 | 22.297 | 6.466 | 22.297 | 22.297 | 4.285 | 14.777 | 14.777 | 2 | 3.733 | 12.872 | 35.168 | 3.733 | 12.872 | 35.168 | 3.637 | 12.542 | 27.319 | 3 | 2.667 | 9.196 | 44.365 | 2.667 | 9.196 | 44.365 | 3.186 | 10.987 | 38.306 | 4 | 2.085 | 7.188 | 51.553 | 2.085 | 7.188 | 51.553 | 3.037 | 10.471 | 48.777 | 5 | 1.986 | 6.847 | 58.400 | 1.986 | 6.847 | 58.400 | 2.791 | 9.623 | 58.400 | 6 | 1.712 | 5.905 | 64.305 | | | | | | | 7 | 1.574 | 5.427 | 69.732 | | | | | | | 8 | 1.320 | 4.551 | 74.282 | | | | | | | 9 | 1.259 | 4.340 | 78.623 | | | | | | | 10 | .965 | 3.326 | 81.949 | | | | | | | 11 | .834 | 2.876 | 84.825 | | | | | | | 12 | .734 | 2.532 | 87.357 | | | | | | | 13 | .650 | 2.243 | 89.600 | | | | | | | 14 | .574 | 1.978 | 91.577 | | | | | | | 15 | .552 | 1.902 | 93.479 | | | | | | | 16 | .432 | 1.489 | 94.968 | | | | | | | 17 | .384 | 1.323 | 96.291 | | | | | | | 18 | .251 | .865 | 97.156 | | | | | | | 19 | .232 | .802 | 97.958 | | | | | | | 20 | .163 | .563 | 98.521 | | | | | | | 21 | .131 | .451 | 98.972 | | | | | | | 22 | .083 | .285 | 99.257 | | | | | | | 23 | .069 | .238 | 99.495 | | | | | | | 24 | .054 | .185 | 99.679 | | | | | | | 25 | .044 | .152 | 99.832 | | | | | | | 26 | .026 | .089 | 99.921 | | | | | | | 27 | .015 | .052 | 99.974 | | | | | | | 28 | .007 | .023 | 99.996 | | | | | | | 29 | .001 | .004 | 100.000 | | | | | | | Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. |
Table 68

Rotated Component Matrix | | Component | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Customer Demand | | .617 | | | | Manufacturing Productivity | | | | | | Quality Improvement | | | | | | Flexibility | | | | | | Ease of use | | | | .481 | | Product Development | .776 | | | | | Education of Management | .828 | | | | | Training of Employees | | | | | | Customer Pressure | | | .637 | | | Public Pressure | | | .553 | | .567 | Shareholder Pressure | | | .676 | | | Government Pressure | | | .700 | | | Supplier Pressure | | | .684 | | | Perceived Benefits | .588 | | | | .489 | Confidence of Management | | | | | .640 | Competitive Advantage | | .500 | | | | Gap of firm’s machinery and new technology | .679 | | | | | Personal characteristics | .480 | | | | | Communication Cost | | | | | .707 | Production Cost | | .540 | | | | Sales Cost | | .599 | | | | Access to Information | | .614 | | .577 | | Competence | | | | | | Change trend of Technology | | .817 | | | | Being Global | .643 | | | | | Availability of Resources | | | | .730 | | Quality of Resources | | | | .687 | | Partner Alliance | | | | | | Level of IT use | .505 | | | | | Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. | a. Rotation converged in 16 iterations. |
Table 69

6.7 HYPOTHESIS TESTING:

Coefficients | Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | | B | Std. Error | Beta | | | 1 | (Constant) | 2.493 | 1.584 | | 1.573 | .123 | | Production | .162 | .371 | .087 | .437 | .664 | | Competency | -.129 | .320 | -.074 | -.405 | .688 | | Structure | -.100 | .386 | -.057 | -.259 | .797 | | Cost | .433 | .223 | .285 | 1.944 | .059 | | Pressures | -.254 | .141 | -.276 | -1.799 | .079 | | IT | -.179 | .244 | -.132 | -.733 | .468 | a. Dependent Variable: Technology upgraded |
Table 70

We applied the regression testing for testing the hypotheses. As the results show that production, competency and structure factors set are significance with the high value and then IT factors. This means those hypotheses regarding these factors are acceptable or not.

4.8 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS:

As the last question of the questionnaire matter it was an open ended question about “what is factor behind your upgradation decision?” data is collected and analyzed, the results show that most of the respondents considered the “Quality improvement”. 19 respondents mentioned this factor behind their decision of technology adoption or upgradation. This is the basic factor in the organization for which organization adopt or upgrade the technology. Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the product is the continuous process in the production firms. As the quality improvement itself holding more than one factors like competition, changing trend, customer demand etc. so considering the quality improvement by textile, leather manufacturing, sports and rice firms is positive response that showing the importance of this factor.
Some organization only mentioned the “Quality” without specifying the quality of product or quality of the system or quality of the production process. They mentioned the overall quality improvement as a benefit and driver for the technology upgradation.
The 2nd major factor behind their technology upgradation decision considered by the respondents is “Customer demand”. 15 respondents considered this factor as their driver for technology upgradation. And if we go in depth most of respondents from them are textile manufactures. As they produce the yarn or cloth that is raw material for the garments and clothes organizations. So they have more pressure from customers’ side regarding the new technology adoption or upgradation. And other respondents are leather firms who mostly produce the leather and supply to the firms which engage in the business of leather products manufacturing. So the most priority by the respondents is customer demand. And 3rd important factor considered by the respondents is “Product development” as 14 respondents responded to this factor. The products that involved into customer relationship also care about the product improvement and product development. As the improvement of the product not only because of customer pressure it can also be by competitor pressure. It can also be the market pressure or whatever but the product development plays a vital role in the decisions of technology adoption or technology upgradation.
Then another critical factor considered by the respondents is “Competition”. What the competitors are doing, what’s their strategies, how much market share they are holding is the part of the strategies of the organization. As to get the place in the market organizations have to compare their products and processes with the competitors. And this comparison can lead to a firm towards the decisions about the technology adoption or technology upgradation. And when respondents are asked to describe about the pressure for up grading the technology, they responded “competitor pressure”. According to many organizations as most of them are textile manufacturer, the competition is the most critical factor behind the upgradation or adoption of technology. As the textile industry is a developed area in manufacturing field in Pakistan.
“International trend” is another critical factor in technology adoption. As the technology is upgraded internationally first then come in the developing countries like Pakistan. And the companies’ deals internationally in businesses have to keep an eye on the international trend of the technology to match the quality and technology of the competitors. And in this there come the factor of the customer demand, while the international customers can also force to upgrade the technology of the firm. Like sports manufacturers who internationally deal for business they have to see the international trend of the technology and upgrade it according to it.
Another driver which is related to the international trend is “desire of being global”. As the organization want to be global have to follow the global trend of the technology and have to produce the global quality product. For that companies have to upgrade or adopt the new technology.
And many other factors considered by the respondents are availability of the technology, production enhancement, less labor insensitivity, increased production, public demand, market demand, absolution, supplier demand, control improvement, credibility, reduction of time and cost minimization.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION
5.1 FINDINGS:

Now after the analysis we have the clear results to prove or deny the hypothesis. One by one we see the hypothesis and results about them.
Our first hypothesis was: H1: “production factors of an organization impact on its technology upgradation decisions”
As the high frequency results show that production benefits or factors are playing important role in the technology upgradation decisions. According to the factor analysis some of the identified factors are plying more important part then others in the production set. According to the table 4 the high frequencies are showing the high importance of the production factors in the technology upgradation process. And the table 4 shows that less standard deviation of the factors quality, product development, flexibility and customer demand of product development means that respondent less deviate with the importance. In table 70 the sig value showing the highest relation of production factors with the technology upgradation decisions. So accept that production benefits of an organization impact on the technology adoption.
Our next hypothesis was: H2: “organizational structure impact on firm’s technology upgradation decisions”
Organizational factors in our questionnaire are competitive advantage, filling of gap between the firm’s machinery and new state of art, desire of being global, changing trend of the technology, partner’s alliance, customer demand and perceived benefits. Results of the research are showing positive attitude towards organizational factors. In the tables respectively 20, 21, 29, 28, 32, 5 and 18 the higher frequencies are showing the respondent’s consideration of these factors in the technology upgradation and adoption decisions. In the factor analysis the table 69 shows the most critical factors of the organizational set of factors that ply the most part in the technology upgradation decisions. In table 70 sig value of structure set depicting the results as these factors influence the technology upgradation. Examining all these proves we accept that organizational structure impact on the technology upgradation or adoption.
3rd hypothesis was: H3: “high competency level of the management leads the organization towards technology upgradation”
In competency set of factors variables seem to be important according to the table 69 of rotated component matrix of factor analysis. And in table 4 high frequencies resulting that these factors are considered important by the organizations at the time of deciding about the technology upgradation, improvement or new technology adoption. One factor that play important role in the technology upgradation from the competency set of factors is confidence of the management and competence for developed technology to deal with international business. To get this level of business the firms not hesitate to upgrade their technology up to the international mark. The other factor is education of the management and owner’s personal characteristics. These factors somehow less impact on technology adoption than competence but as a whole the competency set of factors impact on the technology upgradation decisions. So we accept that high competency level of the management leads the organization towards technology upgradation.
Our 4th hypothesis was: H4: “due to cost minimization factor organizations upgrade or adopt new technology”
The cost minimization includes the minimization of the cost of production, sales and communication costs. The table 24 shows the production cost is major factor that drives the organizations to the technology adoption or upgradation. But as we see the table 23 and 25 we get that these two factors (communication and sales cost minimization) are not much impacting on technology upgradation decisions as compare to the production cost minimization factor. According to the table 70 of coefficients (regression results) the cost minimization benefit or variable is less influencing the decisions of technology upgradation by the organizations. Although the production cost is strong factor but in the cost set its value is not enough to accept the hypothesis. So we can say that reduction in cost is not a reliable factor that leads an organization towards technology adoption.
5th hypothesis was: H5: “different environmental factors force organization to upgrade the technology”
We searched in this research that how much these factors including government pressure, customer pressure, public pressure, shareholders pressure and supplier pressure influence on the technology upgradation or adoption process. As the results show that these factors has less impact on the technology upgradation decisions. According to the table 4 these factors has values that impacting less on technology decisions. Table 70 showing the sig value .079 that results that this set of factors is not much significant to impact on technology upgradation decisions. So we can say that outside pressures or environmental factor not pressurize the organizations to upgrade or adopt the new technology. One important factor is defined by the respondents is the customer pressure that is showing the influence on that kind of decisions but as a whole factors not force organizations to adopt new technology.
The last hypothesis was: H6: “IT level of an organization leads it toward new technology adoption”
The IT factors are availability of technology resources, quality of the technology information, access to the information and level of IT in the organization. These factors are related to the IT level of the organization that what will be the level of information technology in the organization that impact on the technology improvement and development process of the firm. The table 30 and 26 show the results that availability of technology resources and access of the information are the critical factors towards technology upgradation. According to the regression results (table 70) these factors are influencing the technology adoption decisions but not have critical impact on the firm’s technology upgradation decisions. As in the Pakistani organizations the sense of the IT resources is not clear and not its benefits. So these factors are not much influencing the technology adoption decisions in Pakistani manufacturing organizations.
In the end our final accepted hypotheses are:
H1: “production factors of an organization impact on its technology upgradation decisions”
H2: “organizational structure impact on firm’s technology upgradation decisions”
H3: “high competency level of the management leads the organization towards technology upgradation”

5.2 CONCLUSION:

The end results of the research are clear with the analysis. As the results show the importance and impact of the many factors on the upgradation of the technology that how they influence the technology adoption decisions. According to the respondents the main factors which leads an organization towards the technology up gradation is the production factors or benefits. As the most companies responded that their factor behind technology upgradation was “quality improvement”. It also shows that the now organizations understand their responsibilities towards products and regarding issues. It also clarify that the customers are now aware of the quality and the better quality products save towards their health and towards their environment.
The other major factor is “customer demand”. Most of the textile organizations responded their factor for upgradation or adoption of the technology was a customer demand. As the respondents agreed that the due to customers they adopted the new technology because they are also deal in international business. So the customer demand is not of only from Pakistan but also from the other countries. The respondents relate the customer’s demand and quality improvements somehow, as the quality is improved due to 2 factors. First due to customer demand otherwise due to competition.
As the in the open ended part of the question about the pressures of different factors on technology upgradation on the organizations, the most of the organizations who responded to this mentioned the competitor’s pressure behind this issue. As the competition is the one of the basic reasons due to which organizations upgrade the technology or adopt the new one. So the other major finding in the research is the competition factor.
Overall in our research we found important factors that impact on the technology upgradation or adoption decisions in the Pakistani manufacturing organizations. These factors are from the different categories of the organizational factors included production factors, organizational structure, competency level of the organization and somehow IT level of the organization. Most important are production factors due to which organization upgrade their technology of the organizations.

5.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Aalbers, R., Heijden, E. v., Potters, J., Soest, D. v., & Vollebergh, H. (2009). Technology adoption subsidies: An experiment with managers. Energy Economics , 431–442.
Adrian, A. M., Norwood, S. H., & Mask, P. L. (2005). Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , 256–271.
Adrian, S. A. (2005). Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , 256–271.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, E. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges and Benefit. Communications of the AIS , 1-37.
Astebro, T. (2002). Noncapital investment costs and the adoption of CAD and CNC in US metalworking industries. Rand Journal of Economics , 672–688.
Baldwin, J., & Lin, Z. (2002). Impediments to advanced technology adoption for Canadian manufacturers. Research Policy , 1–18.
Baldwin, J., Diverty, B., & Sabourin, D. (1995). Technology use and industrial transformation: empirical perspectives. Technology, Information and Public Policy .
Baldwin, J., Sabourin, D., & Rafiquzzaman, M. (1996). Benefits and effects are not mutully exclusive; neither is the use of groups of technologies. 33-73.
Ballantine, J., Galliers, R., & Stray, S. (1996). Information systems/technology practice: evidence from UK organisations. Journal of Information Technology , 129– 142.
Beatty, R. C., Shim, J., & Jones, M. C. (2001). Factores influencing corporate web adoption: a time based assement. Information and management , 337-354.
Beaumont, N., & Schroder, R. (1997). Technology, manufacturing performance and business performance amongst Australian manufacturers. Technovation , 297–307.
Biocca, F. (n.d.). Essay on Benefits and Dangers of Virtual Reality Exploratory Essays Research Papers.mht. Retrieved from WWW.ESSAYFROG.COM: http://WWW.ESSAYFROG.COM
Black, S. (2004). What’sdriving theneweconomy? The benefits ofworkplace. The Economic Journal , 97–116.
Black, S., & Lynch, L. (2000). What’s driving the neweconomy: the benefits ofworkplace innovation. NBER Working Paper. Cambridge.
Brooks, R. M., May, D. O., & Mishra, C. S. (2001). The performance of firms before and after they adopt accounting-based performance plans. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance , 205–222.
Cappellari, L., & Jenkins, S. (2003). Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. The Stata Journal , 278–294.
Carpenter, V. L., & Feroz, E. H. (2001). Institutional theory andaccounting rule choice: an analysis of four US stats governments, decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting princples. accounting, organizations and society , 565-596.
Centeno, C. (2004). Adoption of Internet services in the Acceding and Candidate Countries, lessons from the Internet. Telematics and Informatics , 293–315.
Cheong, J., & Park, M. (2005). Mobile Internet acceptance in Korea. Internet Research , 125–140.
Chuu, S. (2009). Group decision-making model using fuzzy multiple attributes analysis for the evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 586–602.
Cline, R. (2001). The future of hospitality e-business: how the Internet has changed the hotel industry. Lodging Hospitality , 24–30.
Cochrane, W. (1993). The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cohen, W. (1995). Empirical studies of innovative activity. In: Stoneman, P. (Ed.). Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. , 182–164.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal , 569–596.
Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q , 189–211.
Cooper, R. (1994). New products: the factors that drive success. International Marketing Review , 60–76.
Cooper, R., & Zmud, R. (1990). Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Management Science , 123-139.
Coria, J. (2009). Taxes, permits, and the diffusion of a new technology. Resource and Energy Economics , 249–271.
Corral, C. M. (2003). Sustainable production and consumption systems—cooperation for change: assessing and simulating the willingness of the firm to adopt/develop cleaner technologies. The case of the In-Bond industry in northern Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production , 411–426.
Corral, C. M. (2003). Sustainable production and consumption systems—cooperation for change: assessing and simulating the willingness of the firm to adopt/develop cleaner technologies. The case of the In-Bond industry in northern Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production , 411–426.
Coviello, N., & McAuley, A. (1991). Internationalisation and the smaller firm: a review of performance. Journal of Management Studies , 28, 439-61.
Daberkow, S. (2003). Farm and operator characteristics affecting the awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US. Precision Agric , 163–177.
Daberkow, S., & McBride, W. (2003). Farm and operator characteristics affecting the awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US. Precision Agric , 163–177.
Daniel, A. D. (2010). Technology adoption, training and productivity performance. Research Policy , 650–661.
Daniel, E., Wilson, H., & Myers, A. (2002). Adoption of e-commerce by SMEs in the UK: towards a stage model. International Small Business Journal , 253-270.
DARON, A., POL, A., & ELHANAN, H. (2007). Contracts and Technology Adoption. American Economic Review , 916-943.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q , 319–339.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science , 982–1003.
DeCanio, S., & Watkins, W. (1998). Investment in energy efficiency: do the characteristics of firms matter. Review of Economic Studies , 95–107.
Del Aguila, A. O., Bruque, S. C., & Padilla, A. (2002). Internet usage and competitive advantage: the impact of the Internet on an old economy sector. Internet Research , 391-401.
Del Aguila, A. R., & Melendez, A. P. (2006). Organizational factors affecting Internet technology adoption. Internet Research , 94-110.
Desai, M. S., Desai, K. J., & Ojode, L. (2004). A global information technolog model: business applications in developing economies (case studies). Information Management & Computer Security , 401-410.
Dieperink, C., Brand, I., & Vermeulen, W. (2004). Diffusion of energy-saving innovations in industry and the built environment: Dutch studies as inputs for a more integrated analytical framework. Energy Policy , 73–84.
Durkin, M., & McGowan, P. (2001). Exploring a more complete competency spectrum in entrepreneurial small firm Internet marketing. Marketing and Entrepreneurship track at the AMA Summer Educators Conference. Washington, DC.
Fillis, I., Johannson, U., & Wagner, B. (2004). Factors impacting on e-business adoption and development in the smaller firm. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research , 178-191.
FISCHER, M. J. (1996). “REALZING” THE BENEFITS OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AS A SOURCE OF AUDIT EVIDENCE: AN INTERPRETIVE FIELD STUDY. accounting, organizations and sociaty , 21, 219-242.
Ford, D. (1988). Develop your technology strategy. Long Range Planning , 88–95.
Frambach, R. (1993). An integrated model of organizational adoption and diffusion of innovations. European Journal of Marketing , 22–41.
Fuentelsaz, L., Gómez, J., & Polo, Y. (2003). Intrafirm diffusion of new technologies. An empirical application. Research Policy , 533–551.
Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. (1989). Technology diffusion: an empirical test of competitive effects. Journal of Marketing , 35–49.
Geroski, P. (2000). Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy , 603–625.
Getzner, M. (2000). Motivations for and economic success of the adoption of clean technologies. Unpublished manuscript .
Getzner, M. (2002). The quantitative and qualitative impacts of clean technologies on employment. Journal of Cleaner Production , 305–319.
Giannantoni, C., & Zoli, M. (2010). The Four-Sector Diagram of Benefits (FSDOB) as a method for evaluating strategic interactions between humans and the environment The case study of hydrogen fuel cell buses. Ecological Economics , 486–494.
Giné, X., & Yang, D. (2009). Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: Field experimental evidence from Malawi. Journal of Development Economics , 1–11.
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (1998). The origins of technology-skill complementarity. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 693–732.
Goode, S., & Stevens, K. (2000). An analysis of the business characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of World Wide Web technology. Information Technology and Management , 129–154.
Grover, V., & Goslar, M. (1993). The initiation, adoption, and implementation of telecommunications technologies in US organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems , 141-163.
Han, J., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? . Journal of Marketing , 177–196.
Harper, J. K., Rister, M. E., Mjelde, J. W., Drees, B. M., & Way, M. O. (1990). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Insect Management Technology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 997-1005.
Heart, T., & Pliskin, N. (2002). Business-to-business e-commerce of information systems: two cases of ASP-To-SME e-rental. INFOR , 23–34.
Hollenstein, H. (2004). Determinants of the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) An empirical analysis based on firm-level data for the Swiss business sector. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics , 315–342.
Hudson, D. H. (2003). Willingness to pay for water quality improvements: the case of precision application technology. J. Agric. Res. Econ , 433–449.
Innovation and the environment. (2000). Innovation and the environment . OECD.
Iskandar, B., Kurokawa, S., & Leblanc, L. (2001). Adoption of electronic data interchange: the role of buyer-supplier relationships. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management , 505-17.
JaBoo. (2005, March 15). research papers. Retrieved July 13, 2010, from OPPapers.com: http://www.OPPapers.com
Jaime, G., & Pilar, V. (2009). The effect of financial constraints, absorptive capacity and complementarities on the adoption of multiple process technologies. Research Policy , 106–119.
Julien, P.-A., & Raymond, L. (1994). Factors of New Technology Adoption in the Retail Sector. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice , 18.
Karshenas, M., & Stoneman, P. (1993). Rank, stock, order, and epidemic effects in the diffusion of new process technologies: an empirical model. Rand Journal of Economics , 503–528.
Khanna, M. (2001). Sequential adoption of site-specific technologies and its implications for nitrogen productivity:a double selectivity model. Am. J. Agric. Econ , 35–45.
Kohli, A., & Jaworski, B. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing , 1–18.
Kuan, K., & Chau, P. (2001). A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology-organization-environment framework. Information & Management , 507-521.
Leadbeater, C. (2000). Living on Thin Air: The New Economy. Penguin, London.
Lee, M.-C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications , 130–141.
Lefebvre, L., Mason, R., & Lefebvre, E. (1997). The influence prism in SMEs: the power of CEOs’ perceptions on technology policy and its organizational impacts. Management Science , 856–878.
Leonard, B. D., & Deschamps, I. (1998). Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Management Science , 1252–1265.
Levitt, T. (1983). The globalisation of markets. Harvard Business Review.
Li, Y. Y. (2009). Racing to market leadership: Product launch and upgrade decisions. Internet Journal of Production Economics , 284–297.
Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., Gu, J., & Chen, H. (2010). The role of institutional pressures and organizational culture in the firm’s intention to adopt internet-enabled supply chain management systems. Journal of Operations Management .
Lovata, L. M. (1988). The utilization of generalized audit software. A Journal of Practice and Theory , 72–86.
Love, P. E., & Irani, Z. (2004). An exploratory study of information technology evaluation and benefits management practices of SMEs in the construction industry. Information & Management , 227–242.
Love, P. E., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). Industry-centric benchmarking of information technology benefits, costs and risks for small-to-medium sized enterprises in construction. Automation in Construction , 507– 524. love, P., & Irani, Z. (n.d.). An exploratory study of indirect IT costs using the structured case method. International Journal of Information Management .
Malhotra, Y. (2005). Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational business processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance. Journal of Knowledge Management , 9, 7-28.
Malhotra, Y. (2004). Why knowledge management systems fail. Enablers and constraints of knowledge management in human enterprises. Knowledge Management Lessons Learned , 87-112.
Marra, M., Pannell, D. J., & Ghadim, A. A. (2003). The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve? Agricultural Systems , 75, 215–234.
Mary, B., Curtis, & Elizabeth, A. P. (2008). An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems , 9, 104–121.
Mazhar, N. (2010). http://ezinearticles.com/Computers and Technology/Technology Acceptance Model.mht. Retrieved october 16, 2010, from www.ezinearticles.com: http://ezinearticles.com
Michael, W. H. (2009). Upgrading the eLibrary: enhanced information services driven by technology and economics. Library Hi Tech. Bielefeld.
Millard, Ducatel, K., & Jeremy. (1996). EMPLOYMENT AND INNOVATION IN ADVANCED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES. Furures , 171-138.
Morash, E., & Clinton, S. (1998). Supply chain integration: customer value through collaborative closeness versus operational excellence. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , 104–120.
Narver, J., & Slater, S. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing , 20–35.
Noori, H. (1994). AMT management and research: How do Malaysian companies measure Up? SIRIM, Malaysia.
NOORI, H. (1997). IMPLEMENTING ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY: THE PERSPECTIVE OF A NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY (MALAYSIA). The Journal of High Technology Management Research , 8, 1-20.
Nyheim, P., McFadden, F., & Connolly, D. (2004). Technology strategies for the hospitality industry. Technology strategies for the hospitality industry. Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Osmonbekov, T. (2010). Reseller adoption of manufacturers ' e-business tools: The impact of social enforcement, technology–relationship fit and the mediating role of reseller benefits. Journal of Business Research , 217–223.
Oyeyinka, B. O., & Lal, K. (2006). Learning new technologies by small and medium enterprises in developing countries. Technovation , 220–231.
Paul, P. (1996). Marketing on the Internet. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING , 27-39.
Peters, G. (1994). Evaluating your computer investment strategy. L. Willcocks (Ed.) , 99– 131.
Phillips, L., Calantone, R., & Lee, M. (1994). International technology adoption: Behavior structure, demand certainty and culture. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing , 16–28.
Porter, M. (2001). Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review , 63-78.
R, D. A., S, B. C., & A, P. M. (2002). Internet usage and competitive advantage: the impact of the Internet on an old economy sector. Internet Research , 391-401.
Rogers, E. (2005). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Rolfe, J., Gregor, S., & Menzies, D. (2003). Reasons why farmers in Australia adopt the Internet. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications , 27–41.
S. P., & D. P. (1994). Technology diffusion and public policy. The Economic Journal , 918–930.
S. P., & K. M. (1996). Technology adoption and firmprofitability. The Economic Journal , 952–962.
Schot, J. W. (1992). Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of Clean Technologies. Science, Technology, & Human Values , 36-56.
Siguaw, J., Enz, C., & Namasivayam, K. (2000). Adoption of information technology in US hotels: strategically driven objectives. Journal of Travel Research , 192–201.
Soest, & van, D. P. (2005). The impact of environmental policy instruments on the timing of adoption of energy-saving technologies. Resource and Energy Economics , 27, 235–247.
Srinivasan, R., Gary, L., & Rangaswamy, A. (2002). The role of technological opportunism in radical technology adoption: an application to e-Business. Journal of Marketing , 47–60.
Stoneman, P. (2001). Technological diffusion and the financial environment. The United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies , 1-3.
Subedi, P. P., Floyd, C., Harding, A.-H., Paudel, K. C., Rasali, D. P., & saaudi, K. (2003). Household adoption and the associated impact of multiple agricultural technologies in the western hills of Nepal. Agricultural Systems , 715–738.
Talai, O. (2010). Reseller adoption of manufacturers ' e-business tools: The impact of social enforcement, technology–relationship fit and the mediating role of reseller benefits. Journal of Business Research , 217–223.
Tayyari, F., Kroll, D., Parsaei, H., Ward, T., & Karworski, W. (1990). Total cost analysis of modern automated systems. Elsevier , 234– 241.
Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy , 285–305.
Teo, H., Wei, K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: an institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly , 19–49.
Teo, H., Wei, K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly , 27, 19–49.
Teo, T., & Tan, M. (1998). An empirical study of adopters and non-adopters of the Internet in Singapore. Information & Management , 339-345.
Tietenberg, T. (1998). Disclosure strategies for pollution control. Environ Resour Econ , 587–602.
Tornatzky, L., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Vadapalli, A., & Ramamurthy, K. (1997). Business use of the Internet: an analytical framework and exploratory case study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce , 57-69.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly , 425–78.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: towards a united view. MIS Quarterly , 425–478.
Verbeeten, & Frank, H. (2006). Do organizations adopt sophisticated capital budgeting practices to deal with uncertainty in the investment decision? A research note. Management Accounting Research , 106–120.
Verhoef, E. T., & Nijkamp, P. (2003). The adoption of energy-efficiency enhancing technologies.Market performance and policy strategies in case of heterogeneous firms. Economic Modelling , 839–871.
Wang, Y. H. (2009). China: technology development and management in the context of economic reform and opening. Journal of Technology Management in China , 4-25.
Wang, Y., & Qualls, W. (2007). Towards a theoretical model of technology adoption in hospitality organizations. Hospitality Management , 560–573.
Whiteley, D. (2000). E-commerce: Strategy. Technologies and Applications. McGraw-Hill, London.
Wiener, & Jonathan, B. (2004). The regulation oftechnology, and the technology ofregulation. Technology in Society , 483–500.
Windrum, P., & de Berranger, P. (2002). The adoption of e-business technology by SMEs. Research Memorandum 2002-023 .
Yan, B. (2006). Demand for skills in Canada: the role of foreign outsourcing and information-communication technology. Canadian Journal of Economics , 53–67.
Zhang, C., & Dhaliwal, J. (2009). An investigation of resource-based and institutional theoretic factors in technology adoption for operations and supply chain management. Int. J. Production Economics , 120, 252–269.

APPENDICES
APPENDIX-1
Technology adoption or up gradation
This research is to identify the factors for adopting or upgrading the technology in organizations in Pakistan. Your provided information will be kept confidential and only used for educational purpose.

Name | | Designation | | Education | * Below Matric | * Matric – Graduate | * Master/Professional | * Others_________ | Organization | | Business | | Age of organization | * 10 years or more | * 5-9 years | * Less than 5 years | | How many times you upgraded the technology in last 10 years. | * More than 5 times | * 3 to 5 times | * 1 - 2 | * Never |

(Technology: Production machinery, process, information system, communication system or technology)

| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | | Strongly Agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Customer demand is the factor for up gradation of technology | | | | | | Adopting the new technology enhance the manufacturing productivity | | | | | | To improve the quality organizations adopt or upgrade the technology | | | | | | To get flexibility in the production process | | | | | | Ease of use is the factor to be considered for decisions of the adopting new technology | | | | | | Organizations adopt or upgrade the technology for the product development | | | | | | Education of the management influences on adopting the new technology | | | | | | Training of employees influences on adopting the new technology | | | | | | Adoption or up gradation of technology decisions are depended on the pressures. Like: | | | | | | * Customers | | | | | | * Public | | | | | | * Shareholders | | | | | | * Government | | | | | | * Supplier | | | | | | * others | | Perceived benefits regarding new technology | | | | | | Confidence of management effect the decision of the technology up gradation | | | | | | Competitive advantage is factor for firms to adopt new or upgrade old technology | | | | | | To fill the Gap between the firm’s machinery and the new state of the art | | | | | | Owner-manager 's personal characteristics is factor to adopt or upgrade the technology | | | | | | Variable cost, minimization is a factor to upgrade or adopt the new technology? in: | | | | | | * Communication | | | | | | * Production | | | | | | * Sales | | | | | | * other | | Partner’s alliance can be considered the driver for adopting or upgrading technology | | | | | | Competence is a driver for adopting or upgrading the technology | | | | | | Changing trend of technology is a factor to adopt the new technology | | | | | | To become global organizations upgrade the technology | | | | | | Availability of technology resources one factor for the technology adoption | | | | | | Quality of technological informationis the factor behind the up gradation or adaptation of the technology | | | | | | Due to better access to the information firms adopt new technology or upgrade previous one | | | | | | Level of IT use in the organization is a factor for the up gradation of technology | | | | | | When you upgraded the technology last time?_____________________________________________________________________________What was the factor behind your decision of up gradating or adopting the new technology? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Additional Comments: |

Bibliography: Aalbers, R., Heijden, E. v., Potters, J., Soest, D. v., & Vollebergh, H. (2009). Technology adoption subsidies: An experiment with managers. Energy Economics , 431–442. Adrian, A. M., Norwood, S. H., & Mask, P. L. (2005). Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , 256–271. Adrian, S. A. (2005). Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , 256–271. Alavi, M., & Leidner, E. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges and Benefit. Communications of the AIS , 1-37. Astebro, T. (2002). Noncapital investment costs and the adoption of CAD and CNC in US metalworking industries. Rand Journal of Economics , 672–688. Baldwin, J., & Lin, Z. (2002). Impediments to advanced technology adoption for Canadian manufacturers. Research Policy , 1–18. Baldwin, J., Diverty, B., & Sabourin, D. (1995). Technology use and industrial transformation: empirical perspectives. Technology, Information and Public Policy . Baldwin, J., Sabourin, D., & Rafiquzzaman, M. (1996). Benefits and effects are not mutully exclusive; neither is the use of groups of technologies. 33-73. Ballantine, J., Galliers, R., & Stray, S. (1996). Information systems/technology practice: evidence from UK organisations. Journal of Information Technology , 129– 142. Beatty, R. C., Shim, J., & Jones, M. C. (2001). Factores influencing corporate web adoption: a time based assement. Information and management , 337-354. Beaumont, N., & Schroder, R. (1997). Technology, manufacturing performance and business performance amongst Australian manufacturers. Technovation , 297–307. Black, S., & Lynch, L. (2000). What’s driving the neweconomy: the benefits ofworkplace innovation. NBER Working Paper. Cambridge. Brooks, R. M., May, D. O., & Mishra, C. S. (2001). The performance of firms before and after they adopt accounting-based performance plans. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance , 205–222. Cappellari, L., & Jenkins, S. (2003). Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. The Stata Journal , 278–294. Carpenter, V. L., & Feroz, E. H. (2001). Institutional theory andaccounting rule choice: an analysis of four US stats governments, decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting princples. accounting, organizations and society , 565-596. Centeno, C. (2004). Adoption of Internet services in the Acceding and Candidate Countries, lessons from the Internet. Telematics and Informatics , 293–315. Cheong, J., & Park, M. (2005). Mobile Internet acceptance in Korea. Internet Research , 125–140. Chuu, S. (2009). Group decision-making model using fuzzy multiple attributes analysis for the evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 586–602. Cline, R. (2001). The future of hospitality e-business: how the Internet has changed the hotel industry. Lodging Hospitality , 24–30. Cochrane, W. (1993). The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cohen, W. (1995). Empirical studies of innovative activity. In: Stoneman, P. (Ed.). Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. , 182–164. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal , 569–596. Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q , 189–211. Cooper, R. (1994). New products: the factors that drive success. International Marketing Review , 60–76. Cooper, R., & Zmud, R. (1990). Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Management Science , 123-139. Coria, J. (2009). Taxes, permits, and the diffusion of a new technology. Resource and Energy Economics , 249–271. Coviello, N., & McAuley, A. (1991). Internationalisation and the smaller firm: a review of performance. Journal of Management Studies , 28, 439-61. Daberkow, S. (2003). Farm and operator characteristics affecting the awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US. Precision Agric , 163–177. Daberkow, S., & McBride, W. (2003). Farm and operator characteristics affecting the awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US. Precision Agric , 163–177. Daniel, A. D. (2010). Technology adoption, training and productivity performance. Research Policy , 650–661. Daniel, E., Wilson, H., & Myers, A. (2002). Adoption of e-commerce by SMEs in the UK: towards a stage model. International Small Business Journal , 253-270. DARON, A., POL, A., & ELHANAN, H. (2007). Contracts and Technology Adoption. American Economic Review , 916-943. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q , 319–339. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science , 982–1003. DeCanio, S., & Watkins, W. (1998). Investment in energy efficiency: do the characteristics of firms matter. Review of Economic Studies , 95–107. Del Aguila, A. O., Bruque, S. C., & Padilla, A. (2002). Internet usage and competitive advantage: the impact of the Internet on an old economy sector. Internet Research , 391-401. Del Aguila, A. R., & Melendez, A. P. (2006). Organizational factors affecting Internet technology adoption. Internet Research , 94-110. Desai, M. S., Desai, K. J., & Ojode, L. (2004). A global information technolog model: business applications in developing economies (case studies). Information Management & Computer Security , 401-410. Dieperink, C., Brand, I., & Vermeulen, W. (2004). Diffusion of energy-saving innovations in industry and the built environment: Dutch studies as inputs for a more integrated analytical framework. Energy Policy , 73–84. Durkin, M., & McGowan, P. (2001). Exploring a more complete competency spectrum in entrepreneurial small firm Internet marketing. Marketing and Entrepreneurship track at the AMA Summer Educators Conference. Washington, DC. Fillis, I., Johannson, U., & Wagner, B. (2004). Factors impacting on e-business adoption and development in the smaller firm. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research , 178-191. FISCHER, M. J. (1996). “REALZING” THE BENEFITS OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AS A SOURCE OF AUDIT EVIDENCE: AN INTERPRETIVE FIELD STUDY. accounting, organizations and sociaty , 21, 219-242. Ford, D. (1988). Develop your technology strategy. Long Range Planning , 88–95. Frambach, R. (1993). An integrated model of organizational adoption and diffusion of innovations. European Journal of Marketing , 22–41. Fuentelsaz, L., Gómez, J., & Polo, Y. (2003). Intrafirm diffusion of new technologies. An empirical application. Research Policy , 533–551. Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. (1989). Technology diffusion: an empirical test of competitive effects. Journal of Marketing , 35–49. Geroski, P. (2000). Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy , 603–625. Getzner, M. (2000). Motivations for and economic success of the adoption of clean technologies. Unpublished manuscript . Getzner, M. (2002). The quantitative and qualitative impacts of clean technologies on employment. Journal of Cleaner Production , 305–319. Giannantoni, C., & Zoli, M. (2010). The Four-Sector Diagram of Benefits (FSDOB) as a method for evaluating strategic interactions between humans and the environment The case study of hydrogen fuel cell buses. Ecological Economics , 486–494. Giné, X., & Yang, D. (2009). Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: Field experimental evidence from Malawi. Journal of Development Economics , 1–11. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (1998). The origins of technology-skill complementarity. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 693–732. Goode, S., & Stevens, K. (2000). An analysis of the business characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of World Wide Web technology. Information Technology and Management , 129–154. Grover, V., & Goslar, M. (1993). The initiation, adoption, and implementation of telecommunications technologies in US organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems , 141-163. Han, J., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? . Journal of Marketing , 177–196. Harper, J. K., Rister, M. E., Mjelde, J. W., Drees, B. M., & Way, M. O. (1990). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Insect Management Technology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 997-1005. Heart, T., & Pliskin, N. (2002). Business-to-business e-commerce of information systems: two cases of ASP-To-SME e-rental. INFOR , 23–34. Hollenstein, H. (2004). Determinants of the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) An empirical analysis based on firm-level data for the Swiss business sector. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics , 315–342. Hudson, D. H. (2003). Willingness to pay for water quality improvements: the case of precision application technology. J. Agric. Res. Econ , 433–449. Innovation and the environment. (2000). Innovation and the environment . OECD. Iskandar, B., Kurokawa, S., & Leblanc, L. (2001). Adoption of electronic data interchange: the role of buyer-supplier relationships. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management , 505-17. JaBoo. (2005, March 15). research papers. Retrieved July 13, 2010, from OPPapers.com: http://www.OPPapers.com Jaime, G., & Pilar, V Julien, P.-A., & Raymond, L. (1994). Factors of New Technology Adoption in the Retail Sector. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice , 18. Karshenas, M., & Stoneman, P. (1993). Rank, stock, order, and epidemic effects in the diffusion of new process technologies: an empirical model. Rand Journal of Economics , 503–528. Khanna, M. (2001). Sequential adoption of site-specific technologies and its implications for nitrogen productivity:a double selectivity model. Am. J. Agric. Econ , 35–45. Kohli, A., & Jaworski, B. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing , 1–18. Kuan, K., & Chau, P. (2001). A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology-organization-environment framework. Information & Management , 507-521. Leadbeater, C. (2000). Living on Thin Air: The New Economy. Penguin, London. Lee, M.-C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications , 130–141. Lefebvre, L., Mason, R., & Lefebvre, E. (1997). The influence prism in SMEs: the power of CEOs’ perceptions on technology policy and its organizational impacts. Management Science , 856–878. Leonard, B. D., & Deschamps, I. (1998). Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Management Science , 1252–1265. Levitt, T. (1983). The globalisation of markets. Harvard Business Review. Li, Y Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., Gu, J., & Chen, H. (2010). The role of institutional pressures and organizational culture in the firm’s intention to adopt internet-enabled supply chain management systems. Journal of Operations Management . Lovata, L. M. (1988). The utilization of generalized audit software. A Journal of Practice and Theory , 72–86. Love, P. E., & Irani, Z. (2004). An exploratory study of information technology evaluation and benefits management practices of SMEs in the construction industry. Information & Management , 227–242. Love, P. E., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). Industry-centric benchmarking of information technology benefits, costs and risks for small-to-medium sized enterprises in construction. Automation in Construction , 507– 524. Malhotra, Y. (2005). Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational business processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance. Journal of Knowledge Management , 9, 7-28. Malhotra, Y. (2004). Why knowledge management systems fail. Enablers and constraints of knowledge management in human enterprises. Knowledge Management Lessons Learned , 87-112. Marra, M., Pannell, D. J., & Ghadim, A. A. (2003). The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve? Agricultural Systems , 75, 215–234. Mary, B., Curtis, & Elizabeth, A. P. (2008). An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems , 9, 104–121. Mazhar, N. (2010). http://ezinearticles.com/Computers and Technology/Technology Acceptance Model.mht. Retrieved october 16, 2010, from www.ezinearticles.com: http://ezinearticles.com Michael, W Millard, Ducatel, K., & Jeremy. (1996). EMPLOYMENT AND INNOVATION IN ADVANCED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES. Furures , 171-138. Morash, E., & Clinton, S. (1998). Supply chain integration: customer value through collaborative closeness versus operational excellence. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , 104–120. Narver, J., & Slater, S. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing , 20–35. Noori, H. (1994). AMT management and research: How do Malaysian companies measure Up? SIRIM, Malaysia. NOORI, H. (1997). IMPLEMENTING ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY: THE PERSPECTIVE OF A NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY (MALAYSIA). The Journal of High Technology Management Research , 8, 1-20. Nyheim, P., McFadden, F., & Connolly, D. (2004). Technology strategies for the hospitality industry. Technology strategies for the hospitality industry. Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Osmonbekov, T. (2010). Reseller adoption of manufacturers ' e-business tools: The impact of social enforcement, technology–relationship fit and the mediating role of reseller benefits. Journal of Business Research , 217–223. Oyeyinka, B. O., & Lal, K. (2006). Learning new technologies by small and medium enterprises in developing countries. Technovation , 220–231. Paul, P. (1996). Marketing on the Internet. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING , 27-39.