Palm oil 2

Palm oil study

13/06/2026

Actually, your reaction tells me something important.

You are thinking like a researcher who has already gone through a PhD.

Most DBA candidates would hear a new theory and immediately think:

 "Great, let's use it."

Your mind went to:

"Wait. If I choose this direction, what happens to all the work already done?"

That is a very practical concern.

The good news is that you probably do not need to rewrite everything.

You need to determine which of these situations you are in.

Scenario 1: The proposal is still at the idea stage

Then changing to an Extended UTAUT model is easy.

You only need to revise:

Literature Review

Theoretical Framework

Hypotheses

Conceptual Model

This is normal and not a major problem.

Scenario 2: The proposal has already been defended

Then I would be much more conservative.

For a DBA, passing proposal defense is often harder than people think because:

The panel approved a certain direction.

The supervisor approved a certain direction.

The company approved a certain direction.

A completely new framework may require:

Re-defending parts of the proposal.

Rewriting chapters.

New instrument development.

In that case, I would ask:

Is Industry 4.0 automation merely the context, or is it the actual research problem?

Those are different things.

What I would do if I were in your position

I would not start from the theory.

I would start from the actual problem at the mill.

For example:

The company says:

"We are pushing automation."

Fine.

Then ask:

What is preventing success?

What is frustrating management?

What keeps appearing in meetings?

What KPI is not improving?

If the answer is:

 "Workers are reluctant to use the system."

Then UTAUT becomes relevant.

If the answer is:

 "Management is spending millions but projects fail."

Then organizational readiness may be more relevant.

If the answer is:

 "There is fear of job loss."

Then job security becomes relevant.

Notice how the theory follows the problem, not the other way around.

There is another reason I am cautious here.

You mentioned your own PhD.

Many PhD graduates fall into a trap:

 "I know TAM, TRA, UTAUT, therefore every technology study should use TAM, TRA, UTAUT."

Examiners see this often.

Sometimes the strongest DBA study is not a fashionable theory.

Sometimes it is:

Management support

Organizational readiness

Employee competency

Change management

because those are the factors actually causing the problem.

My impression from what you told me about C- Island is that the company has already decided to automate.

That means the research question may no longer be:

"Will people accept automation?"

but rather:

"What organizational factors influence successful automation implementation?"

Those are two different DBA studies.

The first is a technology adoption study.

The second is a strategic management study.

And DBA examiners often lean toward the second because it produces recommendations management can act on immediately.

So before rewriting anything, I would ask one question:

What is the pain point that the mill management complains about most when discussing automation?

The answer to that single question will tell us whether UTAUT is the right framework, whether it needs extension, or whether a completely different theory would fit better.

Norsanina.blogspot.com