Handloom 4.0: An AI-Assisted D2C Framework for Sambalpuri Saree Weavers - A Participatory Design Study in Kardola Village, Odisha

Background. Kardola Village in Sambalpur district, Odisha-formally adopted by Odisha State Open University (OSOU) under the Unnat Bharat Abhiyan (UBA)-comprises forty-five weaving households (142 members) whose livelihoods depend on the production of Sambalpuri Ikat (Bandha) handloom sarees. Field data indicate monthly household incomes of ₹4,500-₹8,000, with variation driven largely by differential market access rather than craft quality. Because nearly all output is sold through local trader intermediaries, weavers realise only a fraction of the eventual retail value of their products.

Objective. This study documents the current production and marketing conditions of the Kardola weaving community and, on that empirical basis, develops and specifies the Handloom 4.0 framework: an AI-assisted, Direct-to-Customer (D2C) digital commerce model intended to reduce trader dependence and improve income realisation.

Methods. A Participatory Design methodology was applied. Primary data were collected through a household census (N = 45), semi-structured interviews with primary earning members, four focus group discussions, structured observation of production and transaction practices, and iterative co-design workshops. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis; quantitative baseline indicators were triangulated across interview, observation, and group-verification sources. The framework was refined through member checking and expert review.

Findings. The baseline analysis indicates that income suppression is primarily a function of channel structure and credit dependence rather than production capacity, and that the community already possesses substantial latent digital assets (smartphone access in 38 of 45 households; active WhatsApp use in 36). The Handloom 4.0 framework is specified in five integrated layers: an AI-assisted product catalogue, WhatsApp-first social commerce, QR/UPI-based direct payment, aggregated community logistics, and a producer-company governance structure.

Projected outcomes and limitations. Using an income model derived from observed price differentials, the framework is projected-under stated adoption and demand assumptions-to raise monthly household income toward ₹12,000-₹18,000 and to reduce trader dependence over an eighteen-month horizon. These figures are analytical projections rather than measured results; empirical validation through a controlled pilot is identified as the essential next stage. The study contributes a transferable, community-centred model for artisan D2C transformation while explicitly delineating its evidentiary boundaries.

Sambalpuri saree; Handloom 4.0; direct-to-customer commerce; participatory design; AI-assisted commerce; rural artisan livelihoods; digital transformation; Odisha

1. Bai, Y., Yao, Z., & Dou, Y. F. (2015). Effect of social commerce factors on user purchase behavior: An empirical investigation from renren.com. International Journal of Information Management, 35(5), 538-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253-1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90003-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chari, S. (2017). The political economy of handloom weaving in India: Historical legacies and contemporary predicaments. Development and Change, 48(6), 1289-1314. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12340 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Das, P. K. (2015). Sambalpuri handloom: Cultural heritage, economic distress and developmental interventions. Odisha Review, 71(8), 54-63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. De Souza Mendes, J., Pereira da Silva, R., & Oliveira, L. (2021). Deep learning-based textile pattern recognition for cultural heritage authentication. Pattern Recognition Letters, 144, 112-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2021.01.017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ghosh, A., & Bhattacharyya, R. (2022). Digital payment adoption and financial inclusion: Evidence from UPI in rural India. Journal of Development Economics, 158, 102946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.102946 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. GI Registry, Government of India. (2007). Geographical indication registration - Sambalpuri Handloom (Registration No. 44). Intellectual Property India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hajli, N. (2015). Social commerce constructs and consumer's intention to buy. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.12.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kumar, A. (2013). Fab India: Weaving social enterprise. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 2(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277977913477285 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kumar, S., & Priya, M. (2018). E-commerce adoption among rural artisan cooperatives: A TAM study from Tamil Nadu. International Journal of Rural Management, 14(2), 134-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973005218794441 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Liakos, K. G., Busato, P., Moshou, D., Pearson, S., & Bochtis, D. (2018). Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors, 18(8), 2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082674 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mishra, R. K., & Mishra, P. (2016). Cooperatives and handloom weaver welfare in Odisha: An institutional analysis. Journal of Rural Development, 35(2), 197-218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Nayak, A. K., & Mishra, D. (2020). Price spread and marketing efficiency of Sambalpuri handloom products in Odisha. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 33(2), 165-178. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0279.2020.00016.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Prakash, A., & Tejasvi, A. (2019). Digital cooperatives and artisan market access: The GoCoop model. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(2), 198-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1541003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Randhawa, P., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2021). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(4), 814-854. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12573 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Roy, A. (2019). Supply chain feudalism and rural artisan exploitation in India: A political economy perspective. Journal of Agrarian Change, 19(3), 467-487. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12313 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum / Crown Business. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sharma, R., Mishra, R., & Mishra, P. (2020). Digital trust and rural e-commerce adoption: Evidence from artisan communities in India. Information Technology & People, 33(5), 1505-1529. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-06-2019-0262 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Tewari, M., & Singh, H. (2017). Handloom weavers, technology and the challenge of sustained upgrading: Insights from Varanasi's silk weaving cluster. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 12(3), 480-502. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJoEM-10-2015-0218 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Xu, A., Liu, Z., Guo, Y., Sinha, V., & Akkiraju, R. (2017). A new chatbot for customer service on social media. In CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3506-3510). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025496 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Enhancing Formation Control of Multi Agent Systems Using Ann Based Technique
• Improving Sliding Mode Control with Chattering Reduction using Fuzzy Based Technique
• Cooking Quality, Fasting Blood Glucose, Glycemic Index and Load of High–Fiber Noodles Made from Wheat, Tiger Nut Residue and Cassava Flour Blends
• Matrix Rhythm Therapy Versus Interferential Therapy Combined with Lumbar Stabilization Exercises in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Comparative Trial
• Formulation and Sensory Evaluation of Functional Cake Prepared from Sweet Potato Powder