Antecedents and Consequences of RFID Adoption in Logistics Systems: An Integrated Model

Hongxia Peng*1, 2, Xianhao Xu1, Yuchuan Zhang2

1. School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China; 2. School of Business, Hubei University, Wuhan, China 1 phx@hubu.edu.cn decrease in the bullwhip effect and integration of the supply chain. However, due to the costs Abstract may overweigh the profits for RFID adoption, or RFID is such a promising technology of the Internet other factors impede the adoption decision, of Things that many business firms and public most firms are reluctant to embrace RFID (Kim et sectors plan to adopt or have adopted RFID in their al. 2010) and RFID penetration rate in the logistic systems. The paper reviews the literature and logistics systems is still moderate. To examine constructs an integrated model to investigate the the antecedents and consequences of RFID antecedents and consequences of RFID adoption in adoption in the logistics systems, the paper logistics systems. The antecedents of RFID adoption include technological, organizational and reviews the previous literature and constructs environmental factors, and the consequences an integrated model with a systematic view.
comprise positive performance and negative concerns. The study provides a comprehensive understanding of RFID adoption both for the RFID researchers and the potential RFID adopters. Keywords RFID adoption; Antecedents; Consequences

Literature Review RFID adoption has aroused public concern since 2003 when Walmart and United States Department of Defense announced respectively a mandate for its suppliers. According to the bibliometric analyses by Ngai et al (Ngai et al. 2008). and Liao et al. (Liao et al. 2011), RFID research gradually tends the focus from the technological issues at the beginning to practical application in organizations in the latest decade. Zhu et al.(Zhu et al. 2012) provides an overview of the current state of RFID applications in the logistics activities of different industries such as consumer packaged goods retailing, smart shelf operations, apparel retailing, food and restaurant industry, health care industry, logistics industry and libraries. For both the theoretical and practical purpose, the influential factors, i.e., antecedents of RFID adoption, and RFID impacts, i.e., consequences of RFID adoption are well examined especially with empirical methods in the recent 5 years. Antecedents of RFID Adoption in the Logistics Systems As an innovative information technology, RFID adoption research extends the theories of information system adoption and innovation diffusion using empirical methods such as regression analysis and structural equation modeling. The Technology -Organization -Environment (TOE) framework, which was put

Introduction Logistics is the third profit source of firms. Competitive advantages of modern firms mostly originate from logistics and supply chain management, where information technology plays an important role in the operations management. With the concept of the Internet of Things, RFID has drawn much attention from the logistics professions. RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) is a non-contact, automatic identification technology. A RFID system is composed of an electronic tag or transponder where information is stored, a reader which can read or write information in the tag, and an application software system which can process information from the reader. RFID is also called e-tags. In 2011, 2.88 billion tags are estimated to be sold and the value of the global RFID market would be $5.84 billion(Harrop et al. 2012). By implementing RFID in the logistics systems, objects can be identified and traced automatically during the manufacturing, warehousing, shipping and retailing processes, which would result in labor saving, inventory cost reduction, operation efficiency improvement, increase in sales revenue,

JOURNAL TITLE

- MONTH YEAR

forward by Tornatzky and Fleischer(Tornatzky et al. 1990) and verified in open systems(Chau et al. 1997), EDI(Kuan et al. 2001), ebusiness(Zhu et al. 2006) and the Internet adoption(Xu et al. 2004), was first introduced by Brown and Russell(Brown et al. 2007) to RFID adoption in their exploratory investigation based on the interviews with 6 retailers in South Africa. Since then, the TOE framework becomes the most popular model of RFID adoption. The TAM model (Technology Acceptance Model)
Theor y al. TOE TOE TOE TOE TOE al. al. al. al. TOE TOE TOE TOE TOE TOE TAM TAM TP/NP TP/NP IDT IOS -

(Venkatesh et al. 2000), Technology Push and Need Pull concept (TP/NP), Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) and interorganizational information systems view (IOS) are also introduced to RFID adoption research. In these theoretical bases, conceptual models and hypotheses are proposed, and antecedents of RFID adoption in the logistics systems are verified by empirical data. The proved antecedents are listed in Table 1.

TABLE 1. ANTECEDENTS OF RFID ADOPTION Study (Chang 2008) et Antecedents* Complexity, cost, mutual standard, integration of supply chain strategy, pressure of transaction partners, degree of competition in the marketplace, suppliers industry environment Compatibility, costs, top management support, presence of a champion, external pressure Explicitness of technology, accumulation of technology, encouragement for innovation, quality of human resource, governmental support, environmental uncertainty Technology factors, organizational factors, environment factors, product factors Perceived benifits, standardization, top management support, IT knowledge capability, environmental uncertainty, competitive pressure, inter-organizational cooperation Complexity, compatibility, firm size, competitive pressure, trading partner power, information intensity Technology competence, technology compatibility, top management support, RFID related cost, competitive pressure, government support Perceived benifit, complexity, compatibility, financial capability, management support, IT experiences, organization size, technical know-how, inter-organizational readiness, competitive pressure, external support, change agents, certainty Costs, top management support, supply chain benefits, supply chain forces Technology complexity, technology maturity, top management support, trading partner power, trading partner readiness complexity, cost, security, top management support, technological knowledge, organzition size, competitive pressure, expectation of market trends Security, subjective norms, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness Subjective norms, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness Technology push, need pull, presence of champions, organizational readiness Operation efficiency, manufacturing efficiency, supply chain efficiency, organization context, investment cost, market environment, technology characteristic Relative advantages, complexity, supply chain integration, organizational readiness social support, power structure, organizational readiness, procedural flexibility, top management support Cross-functional knowledge, procedural flexibility, effective information-processing standards Ubiquity, performance gaps, perceived benefits, cost savings, financial resources, technological knowledge Customer mandate Perceived potentials of RFID, RFID experience, company size, cultural differences Cost Satisfaction with technologies, technology optimism, technology innovativeness, hostage position Internal drivers, cost, lack of understanding, technical issues Top management support, external pressure, organziational size

(Schmitt et al. 2009) (Lin et al. 2009) (Wen 2009) et al.

(Jang 2010) (Wang 2010) (Park 2011) (Fazel 2011) et et et

(Thiesse et 2011)

(Wu et al. 2011) (Chong et al. 2012) (Chao et al. 2009) (Cheng et al. 2011) (Lee et al. 2007) (Shih et al. 2008) (Tsai et al. 2010) (Tsai et al. 2012) (Bendoly et al. 2007) (Kim et al. 2010) (White et al. 2008) (Leimeister et al. 2009) (Keating et al. 2010) (Kros et al. 2011) (Reyes et al. 2012) (Matta et al. 2012) * Only the supported

antecedents are retained.

JOURNAL TITLE

- MONTH YEAR

Table 1 shows that on one hand, besides the different expressions of the same constructs, researchers get different results using the same TOE framework. For example, accumulation of technology(Lin et al. 2009) is the same construct with IT knowledge capacity(Jang 2010) and IT experience(Fazel et al. 2011). Technology complexity, compatibility, organization size, IT capacity and environmental uncertainty was both proved and disproved by more than two studies. On the other hand, different theory bases come to similar antecedents. For example, perceived benefit(Jang 2010) (Fazel et al. 2011) is similar to relative advantage(Tsai et al. 2010), perceived usefulness(Chao et al. 2009) (Cheng et al. 2011) and perceived potentials(Leimeister et al. 2009). By merging the similar constructs, the antecedents of RFID adoption can be integrated into the TOE framework as three dimensions, namely, technological context mainly including complexity, compatibility, perceived benefit, cost and technology maturity, organizational context mainly including organization size, top management support, IT competence, performance gap and financial resources, and environmental context mainly including government support, supply chain pressure, competition pressure, supply chain integration, environmental uncertainty

and RFID suppliers support. Consequences of RFID Adoption in the Logistics Systems Literature pertaining to the consequences of RFID adoption has two streams. One focuses on the quantitative evaluation of economic impact of RFID in a particular firm or supply chain with the methods of case study, analytic modeling and simulation. Consequences of RFID adoption are measured by both direct financial indicators such as return on investment(ROI) (de Souza et al. 2011; Doerr et al. 2006; Ferrer et al. 2011) and net present value(NPV) (Ustundag et al. 2010), and indirect financial indicators such as the improvement in cycle time, lead time(Bendavid et al. 2009; Fosso Wamba et al. 2008), inventory turnover and inventory level(Wang et al. 2011). Visich et al.(Visich et al. 2009) reviews the existing quantitative empirical evidence of RFID on supply chain performance and classifies the RFID consequences into automational effects on operational processes (indicated by labor cost, shipping efficiency, receiving efficiency, inventory control, inventory cost, throughput), informational effects on managerial processes (indicated by container utilization, responsiveness and waste reduction), and transformational effects on process redesign.

TABLE 2. CONSEQUENCES OF RFID ADOPTION Study (Tsai et 2012) (Kros et 2011) (Reyes et 2012) al. al. al. Benets: patient care, productivity, security and safety, asset management, communication Inventory ratio, sales efficiency Managerial risk, process fit, data fit, system fit (Lin et al. 2009) (Zelbst 2010) (Zelbst 2011) (Zelbst 2012) (Hazen 2012) et et et et al. Supply chain information sharing al. al. al. Organizational performance agility, operational Consequences Mediators Dependent variables Operational performance: relative advantage, operational gains, competitiveness, tracking capabilities Logistics performance: fill rate, cycle time consistency, cycle time length , on-time delivery, ability to customize service Performance: cost performance, quality performance, financial performance Financial performance: profit change Organizational performance: learning & growth, internal process, customer, finance Business performance: reduced inventory, reduced cycle time, improved resource utilization, improved process quality, improved service Financial performance: prot, revenue growth, cost per order, return on assets; Non-financial performance: order ll rates, order cycle time, delivery time, customer requirements met, number of faults, exibility Supply chain performance: zero-defect products, value-added services, order accuracy, responsiveness, flexibility, cost control, inventory control Logistic performance: customer satisfaction, delivery dependability, responsiveness, delivery flexibility, order fill capacity Organizational performance: average return on investment, average prot, prot growth, average return on sales Efficiency, effectiveness, resiliency

(Chang 2011) (Park et al. 2011) (Lim et al. 2009)

Efficiency outcomes, effectiveness outcomes, supply chain performance Buyer-supplier relationship as a moderator

The other stream of literature focuses on the causal relationship between RFID adoption and

supply chain performance with survey-based description statistics, multiple regression

JOURNAL TITLE

- MONTH YEAR

analysis and structural equation modeling, where non-financial outcomes are also stressed. Compared to the quantitative evaluation of RFID performance in particular organization, empirical research based on statistical data from large sample of organizations adopted RFID reveals the universal and comprehensive consequences of RFID adoption, as well as how RFID adoption exerts the influence on the supply chain is shown. The studies are listed in Table 2. The performance consequeces in the postadoption stage are actual outcomes of RFID adoption. They are different constructs from the expected performance of RFID, which is expressed as perceived benefits, supply chain integration or relative advantages in the preadoption stage. As shown in Table 2, empirical literature on the consequeces of RFID adoption are more fresh than the antecedents research, due to the short history of RFID applications. With the data collected from the top managers by their experience and the comparision with
Complexity Compatibilit y Maturity Financial resources IT competence Top mgt support Firm size SC pressure Government support Competition pressure RFID suppliers support Perceived cost Perceived benefit Performance gap Organization readiness

other firms in the same industry, both financial and non-financial performance of the organiztion and the supply chain are investigated. Though the findings provide a comprehensive understanding toward the RFID performance, some positive or negative consequences of RFID adoption, e.g., increase of customer order(Ustundag et al. 2010), competitive advantage(Cannon et al. 2008; Powell et al. 1997), employee fears and customers private concerns(Bunduchi et al. 2011), are still yet to be examined by empirical researchers. The Integrated Model The previous literature usually separates the antecedents and consequences of RFID adoption in different models, and pays less attention to the internal relationship among the antecedents or consequences themselves. We propose an integrated conceptual model for a comprehensive understanding of RFID adoption in logistics systems, as shown in Fig. 1.
Operational performance
-efficiency -accurancy -logistics capability -supply chain integration

Automation Information sharing

RFID Adoption

Financial performance
- cost savings - return on investment - profit

Competitive advantege External pressure External support Employee fears Customers private concerns FIG. 1 THE INTEGRATED MODEL OF RFID ADOPTION

In the integrated model shown in Fig. 1, antecedents are at the left side of the RFID adoption, and consequences are at the right side. The arrows indicate the causal or formative relationship between the variables. The antecedents includes technological, organizational and environmental factors following the TOE framework. Most factors in Table 1 are summarized in the left side of our model. Moreover, the TOE framenwork is modified to indicate the relationships within the TOE dimensions. For example, technology maturity integates technology standard and security. Technology complexity and maturity are the determinants of perceived cost, whereas technology compatibility and maturity

are the determinants of perceived benefit (or relative advanteges of RFID technology). From the technological dimension, perceived cost and perceived benefit are direct antecedents of RFID adoption. From the organizational dimesion, organizational readiness is influenced by financial resouces, IT competence and top management support, and firm size has a moderating effect on financial resouces and IT competence. At the right side of the integrated model, nagetive consequences of RFID adoption including employee fears and customers private concerns are involved. As to the positive consequences, operational performance was measured by the subdimensions of efficiency, accurancy, logistics capability and supply chain

JOURNAL TITLE

- MONTH YEAR

integration, was mediated by automation and information sharing, and has a positive effect on both financial performance and competitive advanteges. Conclusions The paper put forward an integrated model for antecedents and consequences of RFID adoption based on literature survey. The contributions of the integrated model are threefold. Firstly, the antecedents and consequences are put in the same model to show the reasons and outcomes of RFID adoption in the fims that have already adopted RFID in their logistics systems. It provides more powerful explanation for the reasons and outcomes of actual RFID adoption than the RFID adoption intention models where RFID perceptions and expected performance of the non-adopters are also measured. Secondly, our model propose the reasonable relationships within the antecedents and consequences. It makes clear not only what but also how variables are related to RFID adoption. Last but not the least, negative outcomes of RFID adoption are also proposed in the model. It can be concludes that the integrated model helps a comprehensive understanding of RFID adoption in logistics systems for both practitioners and researchers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

[3] Brown, I., and Russell, J. "Radio frequency identification technology: an exploratory study on adoption in the South African retail sector," International Journal of Information Management (27:4) 2007, pp 250-265. [4] Bunduchi, R., Weisshaar, C., and Smart, A.U. "Mapping the benefits and costs associated with process innovation: The case of RFID adoption," Technovation (31:9), 2011-09-01 2011, pp 505521. [5] Cannon, A.R., Reyes, P.M., Frazier, G.V., and Prater, E.L. "RFID in the contemporary supply chain: multiple perspectives on its benefits and risks," International Journal of Operations & Production Management (28:5-6) 2008, pp 433454. [6] Chang, S.I., Hung, S.Y., Yen, D.C., and Chen, Y.J. "The Determinants of RFID Adoption in the Logistics Industry-A Supply Chain Management Perspective," Communications of the Association for Information Systems (23:1) 2008, pp 197218. [7] Chang, Y.B. "Does RFID improve firms' financial performance? 2011, pp 273-285. [8] Chao, S.L., and Lin, P.S. "Critical factors affecting the adoption of container security service: The shippers' perspective," International Journal of Production Economics (122:1) 2009, pp 67-77. [9] Chau, P.Y.K., and Tam, K.Y. "Factors affecting the adoption of open systems: an exploratory study," Mis Quarterly) 1997, pp 1-24. [10] Cheng, Y.H., and Yeh, Y.J. "Exploring radio frequency identification technology's application in international distribution centers and adoption rate forecasting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change (78:4) 2011, pp 661-673. [11] Chong, A., and Chan, F. "Structural equation modeling for multi-stage analysis on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) diffusion in the health care industry," Expert Systems with Applications (39:10) 2012, pp 8645-8654. an empirical analysis," Information Technology & Management (12:3)

The work was partially supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71131004 & 71201050), the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education (12YJC630149) and the Hubei Provincial Department of Education (2011jytq011).
REFERENCES

[1] Bendavid, Y., Lefebvre, ., Lefebvre, L.A., and Fosso-Wamba, S. "Key performance indicators for the evaluation of RFID-enabled B-to-B ecommerce applications: the case of a five-layer supply chain," Information Systems [2] Bendoly, "Internal operational E., Citurs, and A., and and EB. Business Management (7:1) 2009, pp 1-20. Konsynski, on infrastructural procedures, impacts and RFID

perceptions

commitment:

Knowledge, information-

processing standards," Decision Sciences (38:3) 2007, pp 423-449.

JOURNAL TITLE

- MONTH YEAR

[12] de Souza, R., Goh, M., Sundarakani, B., Wai, W.T., Toh, K., and Yong, W. "Return on investment calculator for RFID ecosystem of high tech company," Computers in Industry (62:8-9), 0010-01-01 2011, pp 820-829. [13] Doerr, K.H., Gates, W.R., and Mutty, J.E. "A hybrid approach to the valuation of RFID/MEMS technology applied to ordnance inventory," International Journal of Production Economics (103:2), 2006-10-01 2006, pp 726-741. [14] Fazel, A., Forouharfar, readiness A., for and RFID Fazel, A. "Measuring adoption:

Determinants Korea,"

impacting

the

adoption of

and

implementation of RFID technology in South International Journal Information Management (30:5) 2010, pp 388-398. [22] Kros, J.F., Jr. Richey, R.G., Chen, H., and Nadler, S.S. "Technology emergence between mandate and acceptance: an exploratory examination of RFID," International & Journal of Physical (41:7) Distribution Logistics Management

2011, pp 697-716. [23] Lee, C.P., and Shim, J.P. "An exploratory study of radio frequency identification (RFID) adoption in the healthcare industry," European Journal of Information Systems (16:6) 2007, pp 712-724. [24] Leimeister, S., Leimeister, J.M., Knebel, U., and Krcmar, H. "A cross-national comparison of perceived strategic importance of RFID for CIOs in Germany and Italy," International Journal of Information Management (29:1) 2009, pp 37-47. [25] Liao, W., Lin, T.M.Y., and Liao, S. "Contributions to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) research: An assessment of SCI-, SSCI-indexed papers from 2004 to 2008," Decision Support Systems (50:2), 2011-01-01 2011, pp 548-556. [26] Lim, S.H., and Koh, C.E. "RFID implementation strategy: perceived risks and organizational fits," Industrial Management & Data Systems (109:8) 2009, pp 1017-1036. [27] Lin, C.Y., and Ho, Y.H. "RFID technology adoption and supply chain performance: an empirical study in China's logistics industry," Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (14:5) 2009, pp 369-378. [28] Matta, V., Koonce, D., and Jeyaraj, A. "Initiation, Experimentation, Implementation of innovations: The case for Radio Frequency Identification Systems," International Journal of Information Management (32:2) 2012, pp 164-174. [29] Ngai, E.W.T., Moon, K.K.L., Riggins, F.J., and Yi, C.Y. "RFID research: An academic literature review (19952005) and future research directions," International Journal of Production

Reflection from Iranian supply chain companies," African Journal of Business Management (5:10) 2011, pp 3844-3857. [15] Ferrer, G., Heath, S.K., and Dew, N. "An RFID application in large job shop remanufacturing operations," International Journal of Production Economics (133:2), 2011-10-01 2011, pp 612621. [16] Fosso Wamba, S., Lefebvre, L.A., Bendavid, Y., and Lefebvre, E. "Exploring the impact of RFID technology and the EPC network on mobile B2B eCommerce: A case study in the retail industry," International Journal of Production Economics (112:2) 2008, pp 614-629. [17] Harrop, P., and Das, R. "RFID Forecasts, Players and Opportunities 2012-2022,". [18] Hazen, B.T., and Byrd, T.A. "Toward creating competitive advantage with logistics information technology," International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (42:1) 2012, pp 8-35. [19] Jang, S.H. "An Empirical Study on the Factors Influencing RFID Adoption and Implementation," Management Review: An International Journal (5:2) 2010, pp 55-73. [20] Keating, B.W., Coltman, T.R., Fosso-Wamba, S., and Baker, V. "Unpacking the RFID Investment Decision," Proceedings of the IEEE (98:9SI) 2010, pp 1672-1680. [21] Kim, S., and Garrison, G. "Understanding users behaviors regarding supply chain technology:

JOURNAL TITLE

- MONTH YEAR

Economics (112:2), 2008-04-01 2008, pp 510520. [30] Park, Y.J., and Rim, M.H. "The Relationship Analysis of RFID Adoption and Organizational Performance," Conference on The Sixth and International Networks Systems

with Applications (37:7), 2010-07-01 2010, pp 5300-5306. [40] Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F.D. "A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies," Management science) 2000, pp 186-204. [41] Visich, J.K., Li, S.H., Khumawala, B.M., and Reyes, P.M. "Empirical evidence of RFID impacts on supply chain performance," International Journal of Operations & Production Management (29:11-12) 2009, pp 1290-1315. [42] Wang, S.J., Wang, W.L., Huang, C.T., and Chen, S.C. "Improving inventory effectiveness in RFIDenabled global supply chain with Grey forecasting model," The Journal of Strategic Information Systems (20:3), 2011-09-01 2011, pp 307-322. [43] Wang, Y.M., in Wang, the the Y.S., and Yang, of Y.F. RFID "Understanding adoption determinants manufacturing

Communications, 2011, pp. 76-82. [31] Powell, T.C., and Dent-Micallef, A. "Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business, and technology resources," Strategic Management Journal (18:5) 1997, pp 375-405. [32] Reyes, P.M., Li, S., and Visich, J.K. "Accessing antecedents and outcomes of RFID implementation in health care," International Journal of Production Economics (136:1) 2012, pp 137-150. [33] Schmitt, P., and Michahelles, F. "Status of RFID/EPC adoption," AutoID Labs 2009. [34] Shih, D.H., Chiu, Y.W., Chang, S.I., and Yen, D.C. "An empirical study of factors affecting RFID's adoption in Taiwan," Journal of Global Information Management (16:2) 2008, pp 58-80. [35] Thiesse, F., Staake, T., Schmitt, P., and Fleisch, E. "The rise of the "next-generation bar code": an international RFID adoption study," Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (16:5) 2011, pp 328-345. [36] Tornatzky, L.G., and Fleischer, M. The processes of technological innovation Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1990. [37] Tsai, M.C., Lee, W., and Wu, H.C. "Determinants of RFID adoption retail intention: chains," Evidence from & Taiwanese Information

industry,"

Technological Forecasting and Social Change (77:5) 2010, pp 803-815. [44] Wen, L., Zailani, S., and Fernando, Y. "Determinants of RFID adoption in supply chain among manufacturing companies in China: a discriminant analysis," Journal of Technology Management & Innovation (4:1) 2009, pp 22-32. [45] White, A., Johnson, M., and Wilson, H. "RFID in the supply chain: lessons from European early adopters," Distribution International & Logistics Journal of Physical (38:2) Management

2008, pp 88-107. [46] Wu, X.R., and Subramaniam, C. "Understanding and predicting radio frequency identification (RFID) adoption in supply chains," Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce (21:4SI) 2011, pp 348-367. [47] Xu, S., Zhu, K., and Gibbs, J. "Global technology, local adoption: a cross-country investigation of Internet adoption by companies in the United States and China," Electronic Markets (14:1) 2004, pp 13-24.

Management (47:5-6) 2010, pp 255-261. [38] Tsai, W., and Tang, L. "A model of the adoption of radio frequency identification technology: The case of logistics and service firms," Journal of Management Engineering Technology

(29:1), 0001-01-01 2012, pp 131-151. [39] Ustundag, A., Kln, M.S., and Cevikcan, E. "Fuzzy rule-based system for the economic analysis of RFID investments," Expert Systems

JOURNAL TITLE

- MONTH YEAR

[48] Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W., Sower, V.E., and Abshire, R.D. "Radio frequency identification technology utilization and organizational agility," Journal of Computer Information Systems (52:1) 2011, pp 24-33. [49] Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W., Sower, V.E., and Baker, G. "RFID utilization and information sharing: the impact on supply chain performance," Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing (25:8) 2010, pp 582-589. [50] Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W., Sower, V.E., and Reyes, P.M. "Impact of and RFID on manufacturing International effectiveness efficiency,"

Journal of Operations & Production Management (32:3-4) 2012, pp 329-350. [51] Zhu, X., Mukhopadhyay, S.K., and Kurata, H. "A review of RFID technology and its managerial applications in different industries," Journal of Engineering and Technology Management (29:1)2012, pp 152-167.

JOURNAL TITLE

- MONTH YEAR