1. Erik van Doesburg
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
MBA Change Management
Aweg 4-3
9718CS Groningen
06-29135247
e.p.van.doesburg@student.rug.nl
S.2149524
Force of Habit
November
2014
How Incumbent Habits From A Legacy System
Influence Individual Adaptation To New
Information Systems
2. 1
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I want to thank my girlfriend Elina and each and every member of my family,
without your support and love I would never have written this thesis in the first place.
I would also like to thank my supervisor, dr. B. Müller for his faith and guidance during the creation of
my thesis. At times when I got stuck in my thoughts one single remark or suggestion from his side
could clear my head and make the penny drop to continue.
Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank B. Roosenthaler who offered me insight on the decision
making within the UDT case, proofreaders T. Oost and W. Zijlstra and of course all of my colleagues
who participated in this study.
3. 2
Abstract
Purpose: To determine how incumbent habits that were formed in a legacy system
influence individual adaptation behavior when using new information
systems.
Methodology: This paper presents a case study performed at one of the mayor Dutch banks.
In the light of this study several employees were interviewed and observed.
Internal documents were consulted to give a broader perspective.
Propositions were formed and preliminary results were found regarding the
theories of punctuated equilibrium (Eldredge & Gould, 1972), the CMUA
model (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005) and habit development / disruption
strategies (Polites & Karahanna, 2013).
Findings: The findings of this paper show that incumbent habits not only influence the
outcome of coping strategies, it also describes how they influence familiarity
pockets and thus adaptation. The strength of habits that are formed within a
legacy system are so strong that they can result in a complete or partial exit
when it comes to coping strategies even if the user’s initial appraisal of the
system is positive. Yet by providing an environmental trigger the incumbent
habits can be triggered within the new environment which in return not only
broadens the initial familiarity pocket, it also led to the formulation a new
strategy regarding habit development strategies.
Keywords: Technological Adaptation, Habits, Familiarity Pockets, Coping Strategies,
Punctuated Equilibrium, Legacy Systems
Paper type: Case study
Word count: 13.887
Supervisor: Dr. B. Müller
5. 4
1. Introduction
Recent research underlines that habits are important drivers when it comes to IS acceptance and
continued usage (e.g. Kim & Malhotra, 2005; Limayem, Hirt, & Cheung, 2007; Polites & Karahanna,
2012, 2013). While the antecedents that influence the final adoption of new IS have been extensively
researched in change management literature (e.g. Benbasat & Barki 2007; Morris & Venkatesh 2010;
Venkatesh et al. 2012; Davis et al. 1989; Beaudry & Pinsonneault 2005) and the field has come a long
way in explaining user behavior, there are still some blind spots when it comes to the understanding
of individual adaptive behavior1
(Chin, Marcolin & Newsted, 2003). This study will look at how habits
that were formed in incumbent systems influence individual adaptive behavior. As a result it will
build theory, through a case study, on the differences of adaptive behavior of IS users and will focus
on the influence that incumbent habits that were gained within legacy systems2
have on individual
adaptive behavior.
1.1 Background
Habits can form an obstacle to repeated use of a new system, especially if the incumbent system is
still accessible to the user (Polites & Karahanna, 2012; Polites, 2009). This is an important notion
since a lot of the current IS implementations are (partial) replacements of incumbent systems
(Polites & Karahanna, 2013). Habits and routines are a relatively unstudied part within the field of
technological change is habitual behavior. Getting used to new systems means that a user needs to
get rid of long standing habits and create new ones. This is a hard task since the force of those habits
and routines unintentionally force users back to their old ways of working (Verplanken & Wood,
2006). Disrupting these habits and routines and stimulating the development of new habits might
prove an efficient way to increase system usage (Polites & Karahanna, 2013). A hindering or enabling
role of incumbent system habits on individual adaptation behavior when using new technological
applications has not been described in literature yet and will be addressed in this thesis. In order to
achieve this, I will link the literature of behavioral habits to IS acceptance, coping and familiarity
pocket literature.
The academic community has primarily focused on individual acceptance and intended behavior
following technological change. Within the field of social ontology, research concerning technology
mediated change, predominately points to human agency (Boudreau & Robey, 2005). This has
manifested in well-established models like; The Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980),
The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis et al.,
1989) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Visnawath Venkatesh et al.,
2003). Traditionally speaking the field of IS acceptance has been classified as described in figure 1.
Figure 1: Traditional IS acceptance research - model adapted from Polites & Karahanna (2013)
1
“The cognitive and behavioral efforts performed by users to cope with significant information technology events that occur in their work
environment.” (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005, p. 493)
2
“Software systems that we don’t know how to cope with but that are vital to our organization” (Bennett, 1994, p. 19)
6. 5
As mentioned, Davis et al. (1989) and Venkatesh et al. (2003) are key figures in the field of
acceptance literature. Both authors state that personal, as well as contextual factors play a large role
in the adoption of a new system. Furthermore, both studies make a clear distinction in outcomes
resulting in use or non-use. Models such as TAM and UTAUT however assume that intention leads to
behavior, but also that once that behavior has occurred a single time, it will be repeated. It ignores
that users might have to go through the entire circle again once they are confronted with the new
technology for a 2nd
, 3rd
or even a 1000th
time. In my opinion, this assumption is one of the major
flaws within said models. While I do not contradict that humans have the capacity to make rational
choices and evaluate those choices, I challenge that humans will always evaluate those choices, be it
either intentional or unintentional. In that way human agency ignores that users have gained
routines and habits3
from the use of (legacy) systems throughout the years. By looking at those
actions that were unintentionally not evaluated, I will shed new light on how adaptive behavior
occurs.
The actual (non-)usage of the system is part of adaptive behavior because people have a
predisposition towards the system and use the system in different ways (Boonstra & Van Offenbeek,
2010). The degree to which all of the features of a system are utilized can be described as the
assimilation of an information system (Cooper & Zmud, 1990; Volkoff, et al., 2007). A common result
after implementation of new technology is partial adaptation (Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1993). To illustrate
partial adaptation in everyday life, think of smartphones. While most users use their smartphone not
only to have phone conversations, but also use it to check time, e-mails and for instant messaging,
there are plenty of people walking around with physical agendas, instead of the integrated one on
their smartphone or use mp3 players to listen to music. Beaudry & Pinsonneault (2005) are among
the few that focus on the individual level and developed a model, called Coping Model User
Adaptation, which accounts for a wide range of user behaviors that are categorized as benefits
maximizing, benefits satisfying, disturbance handling and self-preservation.
The responses resulting from the CMUA model can be classified as coping strategies4
(Beaudry &
Pinsonneault, 2005). In the available literature of coping strategies concerning technological change,
models usually focus on the change as a whole. This means that the user in question is assumed to
have one predisposition towards the entire implementation. Users will be inclined to act only
according to one of the behaviors mentioned by the coping strategy theories. This assumption
ignores that technology is supposed to be a multifaceted solution, when it aims to provide a more
integrated way of working. It could well be that there are parts of the solution that will be met by the
user with acceptance while other aspects will meet resistance and will be ignored. Furthermore, just
like the earlier mentioned acceptance models, this model is presented in a way that once the user
has gone through the different stage, it is a done deal. Even though the user appraises the event as
an opportunity the sheer number of failed IS implementations suggests in my opinion that it does not
always lead to individual efficiency and effectiveness. This calls for more research regarding this
subject.
3
“The non-deliberate, automatically incalculated response that individuals may bring towards the behavior of IT usage.” (Limayem et al.,
2001, p. 275)
4
“The cognitive and behavioral efforts exerted to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or
exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141)
7. 6
1.2 Research Question
Taking the limitations and gaps in to account where the academic field stands right now, this thesis
will draw upon recent research in technology use and adaptation, together with research on routines
and habits, coping behavior and the user adaptation of technology, to examine the following
research question with the following sub questions:
In what way do incumbent system habits formed within a legacy system environment play
a role in individual adaptation behavior when using new technological applications?
To answer this question, first a review of current literature has been conducted and the findings of
the different constructs have been synthesized in chapter 2. This same chapter will state the
conceptual model and the propositions that have been examined during the case study. The
propositions that are formed in chapter 2 are the results of inductive reasoning and reduce the
research question to a testable and falsifiable form. The case study has been conducted at a
company where the implementation of an organization wide IS is in progress right now. Side-by-side
monitoring, interviews and reviews of internal documents have been used to come to insights
concerning the matter at hand and have been held against the findings from the academic field and
the propositions of this paper.
The purpose of this research is to offer contributions in an ostensive academic manner as well as in a
practical managerial manner. This paper’s contribution to the literature will be an enrichment in the
field of habitual behavior and technology acceptance. Furthermore it will make suggestions on the
refinement of coping strategies and will be an extension of Polites & Karahanna's (2013) paper on
the imbeddedness of IS habits in organizational and individual routines by providing additional
propositions concerning habit disruption and habit development strategies. By linking the existence
of legacy systems with the literature of IS habits, acceptance of change and coping mechanisms, a
more integrated view of change literature will be established.
This study will provide managers insight on how the existence of incumbent system habits that were
formed within a legacy system influence individual adaptation of new technological applications, and
will show them new strategies about triggering the incumbent habits in a new IS environment. It will
provide suggestions on the set-up of new systems that are not ready to be implemented, but are still
in the development. Gaining better insight will offer managers the possibility to make better use of
available tactics of IS development and implementing strategies concerning technological change.
8. 7
2. Theoretical section
The purpose of the theoretical section is to tie the different constructs together in a cohesive story
and show their underlying relatedness. This section will give a recap of the foundations on which this
field has been build and will provide definitions of the terminology used throughout this paper. The
success of technological implementations is significantly influenced by current practices and how the
implementation unfolds (Lapointe & Rivard, 2007). Understanding the factors and dynamics that
influence these behaviors is central to this work. To better understand the role of incumbent habits
of a legacy system on the individual adaptation behavior of IS usage, it is important that the different
constructs of this framework are based on both intentional as well as automatic determinants of user
behavior.
As said, the field of IS acceptance and usage has been researched extensively and has resulted in
several models that examine the variables leading up to acceptance, like the Technology Acceptance
Model (Davis et al., 1989), but also models dealing with different behavioral mechanisms when users
are confronted with change like the Coping Model of User Adaptation CMUA (Beaudry &
Pinsonneault, 2005). By explaining how routines and habits work within IS usage, the different
models will be linked in a conceptual model and propositions will be formulated to showcase the
relations within the conceptual model.
2.1 Legacy Systems
The implementation of new systems is often performed in order to (partially) replace systems that
users have worked with for extended periods of time (Polites & Karahanna, 2013), such systems can
often be described as legacy systems. Polites & Karahanna (2013) use the term incumbent system; I
will focus on legacy systems. While a legacy system often is the incumbent system, it does not mean
that every incumbent system is a legacy system. An incumbent system is the current system, but that
does not automatically mean that it is used often, nor does it imply that the system has been in use
for an extended period of time. Especially this last criteria is, in my opinion important, if it comes to
changing habits and routines. A legacy system can be defined as “[large] software systems that we
don’t know how to cope with but that are vital to our organization” (Bennett, 1994, p. 19).
Furthermore Bennett provides characteristics that apply to most (but not all) legacy systems:
1. The system is over 10 years old
2. Written in an old coding language
3. It performs crucial work for the
organization
4. Hard to change the system
5. Has a long history of intensive main-
tenance
6. Specialized knowledge
Another, yet similar definition, states that a legacy system can be defined as “a mission critical
software system developed sometime in the past that has been around and has changed for a long
time without undergoing systematic remedial actions” (Lucia et al., 2001, p. 1). This latter definition is
also more in line with the laws of program evolution (Lehman, 1980), which state that the underlying
principles of what a legacy system entails are: the law of continuing change, which states that a
program must undergo continual changes or it will become progressively less useful in the real world.
The second law, the law of increasing complexity, argues that the structure of evolving software will
degrade unless remedial action is regularly taken.
9. 8 | P a g e
These characteristics apply to the technical aspects of the system. From the user-perspective, this is
the system that employees have worked with, often as long as they can remember and is part of
their work identity. The mere existence of technology has social implications since it influences
people’s interpretations of technology and their actual behavior (Boonstra & Van Offenbeek, 2010).
In the end there are but few options what do with legacy systems when the laws of program
evolution have come true and the legacy system becomes too outdated to keep up with current
developments. One of the options to handle this, is to encapsulate the legacy system as a component
in a new system, when implementing change (Bennett, 1994). However users might not find it easy
to switch from the legacy system to a new system, learn how to operate it, and break with their old
routines resulting in inertia (Boudreau & Robey, 2005).
2.2 Habits, Routines and Experience
Many displays of human behavior has the tendency to be based on frequently exhibited goal-
orientated patterns which are performed in a mindless manner (Aarts et al., 1998; Polites &
Karahanna, 2012). The usage of regularly used systems becomes habitual over time, so prior use has
been described as a predictor of habit as well. When a new system is introduced, the gained
knowledge through prior use cannot automatically be transferred to the new system because users
need to learn again how to operate the new system (Polites & Karahanna, 2012). They have often
used incumbent systems for multiple years. Throughout that extended period of use, habits and
routines of use have been formed. Especially with legacy systems the strength of these habits and
routines can be fierce. Habits can be defined as the non-deliberate, automatically inculcated
response that individuals may bring to IS usage (Limayem, Hirt, & Chin, 2001). This notion is in line
with Aarts et al. (1998) statement about the goal-directed nature of habitual behavior where they
explain that in order to start walking, which is behavior we do not truly think about, we need a
destination to reach. Only once a person has determined where he wants to go and how to get there,
the process of automatic behavior of reaching the determined goal, in this case walking, takes over.
This is the same for usage of systems when a user is confronted with a specific task (Polites &
Karahanna, 2013).
There is a clear-cut difference between habits and routines. While habits are formed on an individual
bases, routines are described as an executable capability for repeated performance in some context
that has been learned by an organization in response to selection pressures (Hodgson & Knudsen,
2004). Both habits and routines are within the context of this case study, which is set in a working
environment, both applicable since as an individual you can still perform a routine which was
instigated through the group.
The main take away is that once users have formed routines using a specific system for a certain task,
they automatically return to that same system over and over again if they have to preform that task.
So habits and routines can disrupt the cycle that is proposed in theoretical model concerning
10. 9 | P a g e
technology acceptance and adaptation behavior. If we were to place habits and routines and their
interplay with acceptance within the field of IS acceptance literature, it can be modeled as depicted
in figure 2.
Figure 2: The influence of habits on traditional IS acceptance research
If a program that is used on a daily basis will be replaced by another program, the habit of using the
original program needs to be changed as well. Since habits are partially automated behaviors, it is
hard to change them (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000). The mere intention of a person to change his
behavior might only be a successful strategy if the strength of the habit is either weak or moderate in
terms of Verplanken, Aarts, & Knippenberg (1997), for strong habits it will take more effort. The
strength of a habit can generally be determined by the frequency of performance in the past while it
took place in a similar setting (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). With strong habits, like the multiple times a
day usage of an application, the intention to change habits has been shown to be unrelated to the
actual behavior (Holland, Aarts, & Langendam, 2006). And even if habits have been changed, the
chances of relapse are high (Polivy & Herman, 2002).
Methods to effectively change both weak and strong habits have been linked to the punctuated
equilibrium theory (figure 3), which was introduced by Eldredge & Gould (1972). This theory states
Figure 3: Punctuated equilibrium model adapted from (Burnes, 2009)
11. 10 | P a g e
that development is marked by isolated periods of rapid change between long periods of time with
little to no change called stasis (Orlikowski, 1996), or as Polites (2009) describes it; inertia. The
punctuated equilibrium theory was first described in the field of biology and its use was later linked
to the field of habitual behavior by, among others; Aarts, Paulussen, & Schaalma (1997); Ouellette &
Wood (1998) and Verplanken & Wood (2006).
These papers suggest that a mayor change within the environment, while stimulating the formation
of new habits, is one of the most likely strategies to break with old habits. This implies that without a
change of the context, be it physical or mental change, it is hard to break habits and inertia will
prevail. Orlikowski (1996, p. 64) states regarding revolutionary change within the model; “Punctuated
discontinuities are typically triggered by modifications in environmental or internal conditions, for
example, new technology, process redesign, or industry deregulation.” When it comes to period of
relatively little or no change, Polites (2009, p. 151) states: “Inertia has a negative impact on
intentions to use the new system, above and beyond its impact through perceptions. Thus an
individual using a system in an inertial state may perceive a new system as useful and easy to use, yet
not voice intentions to actually use it.” Reasoning within the line of thought of those two statements,
my first proposition is:
Proposition 1: Implementing new system with a revolutionary approach will have a positive
relation with actual system usage and therefore the rate of forming new
system habits will be higher.
This proposition is more likely to be successful if access to the original system is limited.
So far literature has focused on the disruption of old habits (Ortiz de Guinea & Markus, 2009;
Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Polites & Karahanna, 2012; Verplanken & Wood, 2006; Webb, Sheeran, &
Luszczynska, 2009) from a, in my opinion, managerial perspective. The proposed techniques are
mainly concentrated at changing the environment that limits the triggers that activate old habits. I
want to shift this view towards how habits from the legacy systems can play an active and positive
role in the formation of new habits in the new system and thus creating an approach that is more
focused on facilitating the end-user. Even though gained knowledge through prior use cannot be
automatically transferred to new IS (Polites & Karahanna, 2012), the occurrence of habitual behavior
can be triggered if supporting features of the current environment are similar to those contexts in
which the behavior was learned and practiced in the past (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). This implies that
the occurrence of habitual behavior is context dependent.
Let me illustrate this with a personal anecdote. Some ten years ago I moved from The Netherlands to
Cyprus. While in The Netherlands they drive on the right hand side of the road, in Cyprus they use
the left hand side. Luckily driving on the other side did not pose a problem for me, but there was one
habit that was constantly triggered which had some funny results. The car I was driving in Cyprus of
12. 11 | P a g e
course had its steering wheel on the right side of the car. The one thing that was different from the
Dutch cars was the positioning of the windscreen wipers and the direction indicators; they were
switched from the left to the right and vice versa. So the environment that I was operating in was
similar to what I was used to, but the actual usage was different. As a result I often switched on the
windscreen wipers when I wanted to indicate my direction. And once I moved back to The
Netherland the same thing happened again, because I got used to the new configuration and
developed a new habit.
When it comes to IS related change, I argue that by partially rebuilding the context, in terms of lay
out and task sequence of the incumbent legacy system, within the new system users experience the
same triggers to display habitual behavior as they did before. So in that sense I think that through
similarity of the systems and recognition by the user, habitual behavior from the past can be
triggered in a new environment.
Proposition 2: When system designers use a similar interface, and use the same task
sequences as were used in the incumbent legacy system, habits that were
gained while using the incumbent system will be triggered within the new
system.
2.3 Familiarity Pockets
Familiarity pockets are the construct that tie habits, IS acceptance and coping together. An IS user's
familiarity pocket comprises work routines and components accumulated through situated
interactive use of the system and can be roughly defined as a user’s sphere of action. Meaning that
the focus of a familiarity pocket is not so much the actual familiarity with the system, but more so
the routines and habits gained by the user through the interaction with the system and/or other
users (Yamauchi & Swanson, 2010). In terms of my conceptual model, the familiarity pocket is made
up by the boxes of “actual new system usage” and “new system habits” (see figure 4). This implies
that users know how particular features of the system work, either through prior use of similar
features or newly learned practices. Different studies have shown that users typically don’t use all
possible features (technological infusion) of a system, but stick with a rather limited set of known
practices (Japerson et al., 2005; Orlikowski, 2000). When faced with situations that are out of the
boundaries of the familiarity pocket, a user can resolve to workarounds (Yamauchi & Swanson,
2010). These workaround need to mask the user’s inability to select the appropriate feature within
the new system. This action can either be intentional as a form of resistance or unintentional when
the user is not aware of particular features within the system. This notion is in line with the findings
of the case study described in chapter 3. Besides that the familiarity pocket can be seen as a sort of
save haven of all the features that a user knows, it is also a representation of all the features that the
user doesn’t know (Yamauchi & Swanson, 2010). Routines that are performed by users within their
familiarity pocket mask much that is not known by the users. While users achieve a level of
competency with the features that are within their familiarity pocket, they can often completely
13. 12 | P a g e
ignore features that are outside their familiarity pocket. The workarounds that the users invent will
eventually make sure that the users get the job done. Yamauchi & Swanson (2010) coined this
phenomenon competent ignorance. As mentioned, familiarity pockets are closely related to learning
behavior (Yamauchi & Swanson, 2010). Developing new routines and habits is part of learning
behavior. This notion is in line with findings of Boudreau & Robey (2005) who state that what people
learn is not so much about what they learn during formal trainings, but can also be largely
contributed to what they learn from unplanned activities that spread knowledge among the users.
Figure 4: Familiarity pocket in relation to traditional IS acceptance literature
The (encapsulated) legacy system can be part of a familiarity pocket (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005)
from which the user can expand its knowledge about the system, but might also be an obstructer of
infusion if the legacy system itself is regarded by users as superior in reliability and/or use (Bennett,
1994). Functions of a legacy that resurface in new IS are familiar for the user and routines obtained
while using the legacy system can be transferred to the new system and help in forming familiarity
pockets within the new system. Coping strategies might help to move outside the familiarity pockets,
gain more experience and thus expand the familiarity pocket.
Proposition 3: When system designers use a similar interface, and use the same task
sequences as were used in the incumbent legacy system, users will invent less
workarounds since incumbent habits are triggered.
2.4 Coping strategies
While intentionally changing habits and routines is hard, it is possible. The mechanics that come in to
play if (behavioral) change is imminent are classified as coping strategies. So once the IT event has
been appraised by the users and intended behavior can be measured, several reactions can occur,
14. 13 | P a g e
and at this point of time coping mechanisms are set in motion. Changes in the environment produce
uncertainty and as uncertainty grows, problems start to occur (Benamati, 2001). In reaction to these
problems, coping strategies are deployed. Coping is defined as “the cognitive and behavioral efforts
exerted to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or
exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Although no undisputed
definition of the different coping strategies exists (Ashford, 1988), the aforementioned definition will
be used regarding this study.
Adaptation behavior describes how users can react and how the implementation of an IT event can
change IT functionalities, the users routines and habits, or the user’s perception of work. When
placed within the traditional IS acceptance model, it has a rather wide focus ranging from the first
appraissal of the event up to the eventual behavior. Figure 5 depicts how coping is connected to the
different stages of IS acceptance
Figure 5: Coping strategies in relation to traditional IS acceptance literature
One of the main drivers behind coping behavior is the desire to reduce uncertainty (Ashford, 1988;
Bradac, 2001). Problem focused adaptation is predominately focused on the external aspects of
adaptation, but does not concentrate that much on the inner self of the individual undergoing the
change. When it comes to emotion focused adaptation behavior, a clear distinction between
avoidance and rapprochement can be made (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010; Ebata & Moos, 1991;
Roth & Cohen, 1986; Skinner, et al., 2003). This is closely related to Beaudry & Pinsonneault's (2005)
CMUA model (see Appendix 1)(Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005), where the user can see the
implementation as an opportunity, so he will look for approachal, or the user will see the
implemtation as a threat and will employ the avoidance method. The approach method can be
divided in two types of behavior where the person either uses problem solving trying to deal with the
problem directly or in the other case he/she will look for guidance and support. When a person
reacts and displays the avoidance method he/she will either look for alternative source to achieve
satisfaction (i.e. work-arounds) or he/she will try to reduce tension by expressing negative feelings.
Uncertainty can lead to avoidance, but uncertainty can be reduced by perceived similarities, which in
return would lead to a situation where the person is more open to approach (Bradac, 2001).
15. 14 | P a g e
Proposition 4a: There is a positive relation between perceived similarity of the legacy system
and new IS and the approach method.
The user is more likely to move beyond the scope of his familiarity pocket and will show active
exploration and information seeking behavior.
Proposition 4b: There is a positive relation between perceived differences of the legacy
system and new IS and the avoidance method.
The user is more likely to stay within the confines of his familiarity pocket and will make display no
active behavior in trying to expand it.
The way users appraise the situation, influences their path of behavior. Avoidance type behavior
leads to a significant reduction of the possibility that infusion, a concept part of the four stages of
assimilation of Cooper & Zmud (1990), is reached, but approach type behavior does not lead to a
significant increase of the possibility of infusion (Fadel, 2012). “In other words, emotion-focused
behaviors such as seeking social support and positive reappraisal may help users achieve a sense of
emotional equilibrium but neither enhance nor diminish their degree of system use.” (Fadel, 2012, p.
7). Users that engage in problem focused adaptation are more likely to reach infusion and achieve
individual efficiency and effectiveness due to their deeper use and knowledge of the system (Fadel,
2012; Goode, 2012) where users that primary display emotion focused coping behavior are less likely
to reach infusion and more likely to opt out (Goode, 2012).
CMUA also implies that as long as the user’s primary appraisal sees the IT event as an opportunity, he
or she will always achieve “individual effectiveness and efficiency” as an outcome. While I
acknowledge the plausibility that a positive appraisal of an IT event is more likely to achieve an
outcome with individual effectiveness and efficiency, I do not think that the process is neither linear
nor rational. Habits are partially automated behavior and have little to do with rational intentions to
use a system (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000). The notion that this kind of behavior is automated also
explains the concept of action slips5
(Norman, 1981) even if the user feels in control and has a
positive attitude towards the change. Therefor I propose that the strength of a habit will moderate
the eventual outcome of the coping sequence.
Proposition 5: The strength of a habit will moderate the outcome of the adaptation strategy
as proposed in CMUA.
5
“The performance of an action that was not what was intended” (Norman, 1981, p. 1)
16. 15 | P a g e
2.5 Conclusion
When combining the pillars of this theoretical section; coping behavior, familiarity pockets, routines
and habits, we can see the interconnectedness of these constructs. IS acceptance literature is an
extensively broad field and the conceptual model (figure 6) depicts how these constructs interact
with traditional IS acceptance literature and with each other. The proposed conceptual model
visualizes where coping strategies are deployed within the different phases of IS acceptance. As
described, there is an overlap between coping strategies and the formation of familiarity pockets.
Coping strategies are deployed up to the point where the user actually starts using the new system,
while that same usage is determined by the user’s familiarity pocket. While the incumbent system
habits are proposed to influence the outcome of the user’s coping behavior depending on their
strength, it also influences the relative size of the user’s familiarity pocket when it comes to the
degree of perceived similarity between the systems. As said, habits and routines are key
determinants when it comes to IS usage behavior. If these routines and habits need to be changed
due to IS change several habit disruption and development strategies can be used. These strategies
will influence the new system habits and thus also the familiarity pocket.
Figure 6: Conceptual model
17. 16 | P a g e
3. Method
Case study approach is considered to be the right approach when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are asked
about a focal phenomenon over which researchers have little or no knowledge or control (Yin, 2009).
Case studies are also considered to be appropriate when researching contemporary questions in
natural settings where little or no previous research has been done (Liu et al., 2011). These features
of case study method fit well with the objectives of understanding how the existence of incumbent
habits influences individual adaptation behavior. This study is set up in a way that it follows the
guidelines for conducting case studies as prescribed by Eisenhardt (1989).
The foundation of this paper lies in grounded theory and focuses on the expressed thoughts and
feelings of the users and their actual behavior. To gather the necessary information for the case
study, side by side observations as well as oral and written interviews were conducted. Furthermore
access was granted to internal documents about system usage and user behavior. The interviews are
interpretations and opinions of individual users and the conclusions drawn in this paper are my
personal interpretations of those statements. This means that this paper does not aim to present an
objective truth for all situations, but rather tries to use storytelling as a lens to give a detailed
examination of the observed phenomena within this case. These observed phenomena will be
compared to the earlier stated propositions and additional insights will be shared.
3.1 Background - Bank Case
Every company starts with a simple operating system, but over the years acquisitions of new
divisions and mergers might take place, making the once upon a time simple way of working, more
and more complicated with numerous systems. These old systems can become legacy systems. To
investigate the impact of the mere presence of legacy systems on adaptation to newly introduced IT
systems, I conducted research at one of the major Dutch bank and insurance companies, which in
this paper will be called Bank for Regular People (BRP).
In 2010 BRP made an organizational wide decision to update and simplify most of the systems that
employees from different brands of BRP, but also inter-organizational departments, had to work
with. A typical employee had to use up to 15 different systems a day, just to answer the customer’s
questions. Most of the systems at hand were developed in the early 1990-ies and were not
considered to be user-friendly anymore. These different systems were to be integrated in one unified
desktop system (UDT). UDT would be accessible for every brand within BRP’s organization. To
integrate the way of working, is one of the main strategic decisions to change an organization
(Rugman & Hodgetts, 2001) and is a logical step for the organization to optimize their business.
BRP decided to build most of UDT in-house while adding custom build components. They
acknowledged that building UDT would be an immense task and decided that evolutionary
implementation would give BRP the best option to create UDT according to everybody’s wishes. The
18. 17 | P a g e
evolutionary approach made it possible to fine tune the program when needed, but also keeps the
users involved in the development of the system. This particular setting forms a great opportunity to
test the propositions mentioned in chapter 2 and to find an answer on this paper’s research
question.
The decision to build UDT in-house and acquiring several custom build Kana components was made
after an extensive selection process. One of the main advantages of the chosen package is its
flexibility. Since most of the core functions of the different operating systems will keep on running in
the background and need to be connected UDT a lot of flexibility of UDT is required. UDT is the
umbrella that connects all the different systems in one single screen. UDT’s mission is to achieve that
80% of the information within UDT is available within four mouse clicks.
In the initial set up of this research two of BRP’s brands were selected for investigation, Alpha and
Beta. Brand Alpha worked with a specific program that was not available for brand Beta, but would
be implemented in UDT for both brands. During the research period it became apparent that there
were some mayor differences between the implementation of UDT between the two brands. The
gradual implementation strategy within Alpha was not replicated in Beta. Beta would experience a
revolutionary implementation where all the systems would be replaced in a short period of time,
which would be a perfect opportunity to investigate proposition 1. Unfortunately it became apparent
that the implementation at Beta would be delayed several months. As a matter of fact the
implementation would occur only after the deadline of this paper. I decided to continue the research
while investigating just one of the brands and build a case study on the information obtained from
Alpha’s users.
Due to the size of this project, Alpha opted for gradually implementing features one by one, instead
of a revolutionary approach where the entire finished product was delivered at once. In terms of
type of change, UDT can be classified as evolutionary change instead of revolutionary. This also
meant, in combination with the flexibility of UDT, that if users were dissatisfied with certain features,
there was time, room and budget to improve. The implementation process started in late 2010 and is
still in progress with both major releases of new applications, as well as minor fine tuning within
existing features. The use of this system is largely targeted at the call center agents and local branch
office employees who are in direct contact with customers, but it is also available to employees of
the different back offices. Within the framework of this study, I restrict myself solely to observing
and interviewing agents of the call centers. To conduct this research also among branch offices
and/or back offices is not feasible given the time frame of this study.
3.2 Collecting data
Multiple data collection methods strengthen the grounding of proposed theories through
triangulation of the evidence (Eisenhardt, 1989). In order to achieve this, I used multiple sources of
19. 18 | P a g e
evidence. First of all side-by-side observations were performed, in total about 15 hours. After the
observations, the same person was asked to participate in a semi-structured interview. The interview
protocol and the interview questions can be found in appendix 2 and 3, while an overview of the
participants’ backgrounds can be found in appendix 4.
Interviewees were assured that discussions were strictly confidential and the content of each
interview was reviewed and signed off by each interviewee as being a truthful representation of the
interview. Interviews typically started with open-ended questions about the system that was being
implemented, followed by more specific questions about their involvement with, understanding of,
and attitudes towards aspects of the system, such as the impact on working processes. In total 6
persons participated in the oral interviews and most of these interviews lasted for about 20 minutes.
Some of the employees that I asked to participate in the interview sessions did not feel comfortable
with being recorded. They did however offer a lot of off the record information. They were also
asked to answer the interview in written form. Eventually 4 of the additional users that were asked
to answer the questions by a written reply complied with this request. Although this method did not
give a direct option to ask follow up questions or elaborate on the answer, it aided in the analysis and
could either support or refute statements made by the interviewees. Strangely enough it were
predominately the men who chose to do the oral interview, while the women gave off the record
information and decided to do the interview in written form. Afterwards I asked why some of the
participants made this decision and the men stated that they did not truly think about refusing and
did not think about other options to aid this research, while the women in general stated that they
felt more comfortable about answering the questions on their own and having the opportunity to
think about their answers instead of answering instantly.
3.3 Analysis of the data
The analysis of the data follows the conceptual model and theoretical propositions since that shaped
the orientation of the data that had to be gathered. The focus of this paper is on individual
adaptation, which is part of coping, and the interplay with habits and there for most paragraphs in
the results section are dedicated to coping behavior and habits in relation to the other constructs.
Since the coping cycle is a sequential model, the case is also presented in a sequential manner.
Furthermore patterns within the data will be identified and analyzed in order to build the case and to
support the interpretations. The theoretical predicted events are compared to the empirically
observed events. As a result the overall set up of the analysis is in line with what Yin (2011) describes
as the logic model. Recurrent patterns in the entire data set were grouped, coded and then analyzed
(see appendix 5: Coding tree).
20. 19 | P a g e
3.4 Validity and Reliability
To ensure construct validity, several sources for obtaining data were used: side-by-side observation,
oral interviews, written interviews and internal documents. Internal validity was sought after by
looking for patterns, dominant themes and explanations in the material. I tried to avoid bias by
asking respondents to comment on my interpretations.
The very fact that I work as a customer service employee at the cooperation that is examined for this
case study and use the actual systems that are discussed, may have an advantage since context-
dependent knowledge and experience are at the very heart of expert activity and lie at the center of
the case study as a research method (Flyvbjerg, 2006). My work at BRP is at same department as the
participants of the case study. Besides working at the customer service, I am part of the user group
that advices the project leaders of UDT on the development of UDT when it comes to practical
implications. This entails that as an employee; I am familiar with the internal terminology of the
organization and know which specific questions to ask when I need to delve deeper in to an answer
or comment of the interviewees.
Before starting the interviews, the participants agreed that I could observe their behavior regarding
system usage. During the observations the participants helped actual customers, which meant that
neither the customer’s questions nor the systems that had to be used were staged.
All of the interviews were recorded for transcribing purposes (see digital appendix: Interviews).
Respondents checked the accounts for accuracy and sometimes suggested changes. The interviews
were semi-structured and contained a set of 25 fixed questions that were based on the work of
Lassila & Brancheau (1999), Moore & Benbasat (1991) and Sun (2012). Additional questions were
asked to clarify statements of the interviewees when needed or to delve deeper into the underlying
arguments. As for the off the record conversations, no detailed records were kept; only key words
and snippets of thoughts were recorded on paper.
Access to internal documents regarding the implementation of UDT was also granted, but due to the
sensitive content of these documents they had to be omitted from the research appendixes. But they
did contribute to the sense making process about why and how certain decisions were made during
the implementation of UDT, but also about the results of the implementation.
21. 20 | P a g e
4. Results
In this chapter the results from the case study will be presented. In chapter 2 the constructs: coping
strategies, familiarity pockets, habits and routines, were introduced and related to one another. The
conceptual model and propositions that were formed in the second chapter will be used as a guide
line during this chapter to tell the story of this particular case. As mentioned, several constructs have
been connected within this paper’s conceptual model and for the sake of comprehensibility the
interpretations regarding each particular subject will presented straight away instead of one final
section dedicated to interpretations.
At the very heart of this case study are the participants, so I will start with a table providing a short
introduction of their background. A more detailed background can be found in appendix 4.
Table 1: Overview Participants
4.1 Initial Appraisal followed by Inertia- Coping & Habits
Even though the initial introduction was considered to be too early by some users, the majority did
have a positive, yet abiding attitude towards the implementation. Years had gone by and the old
systems became outdated, the need for a more effective way of working was recognized by most
employees. Due to mergers and expanding activities of the organization, a multitude of systems
entered the working life of the employees. Most of those systems were not connected in any kind of
way, so in the end users had to learn to how operate up to 15 systems. The depth of these systems
made it virtually impossible for a user to use the systems to their full potential. The news that a new
all-encompassing system would be introduced that would integrate the essential components of the
prior systems was welcomed by both management and the users. Many of the users had seen a lot of
new programs over the years so they did have some reservations about whether UDT would be the
final solution, but all agreed that if UDT would keep its promise, than it should be a huge
improvement. And of course there are always people who embrace change right away. When one of
the users, in this case Alice, passionately promoted the use of UDT while I was observing her, I asked
her whether she had always been an advocate of the new system. She answered with a full
heartedly: “Yes! Absolutely, and it’s only getting better.”
22. 21 | P a g e
But not everybody was as jubilant. John for instance was asked about his response to the
introduction of UDT and he replied:
“Ik denk dat het wel een goede stap in de goede richting is. Maar ik denk wel dat ik daar meer
de functionaliteit van [systeem a] meer terug in zou willen zien, voordat ik denk dat ik echt
daar in overga.” / “I do think it’s a step in the right direction. But I think that I want to see
more of the functionalities of [system a6
] before I truly make a transfer”
As showcased in the quote above, the reason why some considered the implementation to be
premature had to do with the limited set of features. The organization chose to release
implementations in a gradual way instead of a revolutionary approach. This led to a situation where,
at that particular point in time, the legacy systems were considered to be clearly superior to the new
one.
Marc: “In het begin was [UDT] log. Het sloot ook niet aan bij mijn wensen. Er was gewoon te weinig
informatie of dat het niet realtime was. Dus dan moest je toch in een ander programma de
antwoorden gaan zoeken.” / “In the beginning [UDT] was unwieldy. It did not suit my
requirements. There was just too little information, or it wasn’t real time. So you just had to
go to a different system to look for answers.”
Alice: “In het begin was het wel zo dat je nog heel veel [van de benodigde informatie] niet kon
vinden of er heel veel nog niet in stond. En dan moest je vaak nog terug naar [system a] en
[system b7
]” / “During the startup I couldn’t find much [of the needed information] or it just
wasn’t there. And then you often had to switch back to [system a] and [system b].”
As a result the initial enthusiasm faded among the users. Only Alice was persistent among the
observed participants and kept using UDT as her main system. Users lacked in-depth information and
there were rumors that the information displayed in UDT was incorrect. Even now, almost 4 years
after the introduction, these rumors are persistent:
Pete: “En op de een of andere manier, vertrouw ik [UDT] ook niet helemaal ofzo. Als ik het echt
zeker moet weten, ga ik toch terug naar [systeem a] of systeem [c] om het te checken. Op de
een of andere manier klopt het altijd wel, maar toch wil ik het nakijken in het echte systeem.”
/ “And in some way, I just dont trust [UDT] completely. If I have to be absolutely sure about
something, than I always go back to [system a] or system [c]. Somehow it is always correct,
but I still want to check it in the real system.”
6
System a is a registration system. All contacts with a customer are logged in this system as well as all sales registrations
7
System b is a back end system where all the customers’ product details are stored and is used to process all transactions and other
changes regarding the customer and his/her products.
23. 22 | P a g e
Albert: “Soms klopt [UDT] niet helemaal [...] waardoor ik toch automatisch een ander, [system c]
erbij pak.” / “Sometimes [UDT] is incorrect [...] where upon I still automatically will use
[system c]”.
The fact that the information displayed in UDT is retrieved directly from the legacy systems, and
cannot be different, has been communicated multiple times. Over time, the functionalities were
rapidly expanded and trust in UDT grew, but with the introduction of a new feature there are still
mixed feelings about its trustworthiness.
The project leaders saw a steep increase in individual users and consider the implementation a huge
success. However, the project leaders could only monitor how many times UDT was accessed on a
daily basis, but not how the system is used. The depth and the way in which UDT is used might show
a completely different story.
In reality, only one of the observed users, Alice, did not –unnecessarily- switch back to one of the
legacy systems at all during the observations. Three years after the introduction, with UDT in place
and the legacy systems still fully operational, most users did not use UDT at all or used it for an initial
overview of the products that a customer had, but then switched back to the legacy systems when
they had to answer the customer’s question. Everybody was free to use the legacy systems and no
pressure in any form was exerted on switching to UDT. In practice this meant that UDT was
consulted, but hardly used. Users showed inertia behavior, used the new system as little as possible
and decided to continue using the systems as they had been using it for decades. Having the choice
to stick with common practices was welcomed by the employees and many did so. John and Pete
explained their reasons for their inertia as follows:
John: “Ik moet heel eerlijk zeggen, ik heb niet veel ervaring met [UDT]. Weinig tot niet. Ik vind het
wel overzichtelijk. Dus voor een globaal overzicht, pak ik het er wel vaak bij. Maar qua
functionaliteit [gebruik ik UDT] nog niet, of nauwelijks. En dat is voornamelijk omdat ik nog
gewend ben dat oude [systeem a] en [systeem b] te gebruiken.” / “I have to be completely
honest, I don’t have a lot of experience with UDT. Slim to none. I do think it is easy surveyable.
So for a global overview, I do use it. But when it comes to functionality I don’t or hardly [use
UDT]. And that is mostly because I’m still used to using [system a] and [system b].”
Pete: “[Je] hebt nu dus [UDT], dan kun je loggen vanuit [UDT]. Nou dat doe ik gewoon niet omdat
ik dat niet gewend ben”/ “Right now you got [UDT], and you can log contacts within [UDT].
Well I just will not do that, because I am not used to that.”
This first quote is a prime example of how many users treated UDT. They used it to get a global
overview, but when push came to shove; they went back to the legacy systems to perform most of
24. 23 | P a g e
the tasks due to the familiarity of those systems. The users set aside their knowledge and their initial
response of welcoming a more integrated way of working and returned to their status quo.
When I asked Pete what it would take to get him to switch to UDT, his response was: “Well, if they
shutdown system [A]. Yes, if they desert system [A].”
Other users, for instance Albert, made similar statements. Although they stated that they would not
classify this approach as being favorable in terms of user-friendliness, they did deem it to be the
most effective solution in their particular case. Multiple users did not like to be confronted with a
major change that would force them instantaneously to do their job in a different way, others like
Pete and Albert did. Those users who did not advocate a revolutionary approach, but preferred the
evolutionary approach already used UDT. Users claimed that even though UDT was user friendly and
easy to grasp, they did prefer proper training to learn the in-depth features of the system.
4.1.1 Interpretations
It was striking to see that the initial idea of unifying all different systems in to one was supported by
all of the participants. In this case resistance only occurred after first features were introduced,
which was done in an evolutionary way. The earlier implementations did not meet the minimum
viable requirements of the employees to change their habits and routines and was therefore
disregarded as being inferior. The existing habits were too strong and inertia prevailed. This
observation is in line with Aarts et al. (1997) and Ouellette & Wood (1998) who state change of
strong habits is more likely to occur when change occurs as described in the punctuated equilibrium
model.
The users displayed behavior similar to that which is described by Boudreau & Robey (2005) as
inertia where the users use the new system as little as possible and recreate the way they handled
their work in the old situation. In the case of UDT the legacy systems were still available to the users
so the recreation of former ways was not necessary and users were able to maintain stasis and work
in the same way as they always had.
The finding that some of the users themselves acknowledge that it would take a major change before
changing their habits, seems on first sight to confirm my first proposition.
Proposition 1: Implementing new system with a revolutionary approach will have a positive
relation with actual system usage and therefore the rate of forming new
system habits will be higher.
While some users stressed that it would take a revolutionary approach to change their ways of
working, there were also plenty of users that preferred a gradual implementation. The users
preferring the evolutionary approach also experienced a positive relation with actual system usage
25. 24 | P a g e
and the formation of new habits. In their experience the freedom to independently choose to use the
new system enhanced their individual efficiency and effectiveness. The risk of gradual
implementation is a higher degree of action slips.
To best suit proponents of both camps, and thus achieving a user orientated approach to change, I
propose a two-stage implementation approach. The initial implementation should be in an
evolutionary fashion, where users have the freedom to choose between the incumbent system and
the new system, which will be followed by a revolutionary change. This notion is in line with the
punctuated equilibrium model which states that a given situation never is in complete stasis, but that
slow incremental change always exists. In this way users who want to adapt to the new system have
the time to learn it, and the users that do not want to change their ways of working will be forced to
do so once the majority of “evolutionary users” have adapted to the situation.
Revised proposition 1: Implementing new system with an evolutionary approach followed by a
revolutionary approach will have a positive relation with actual system usage
and therefore the rate of forming new system habits will be higher.
This revised proposition can be seen in the light of the punctuated equilibrium theory. However this
theory focuses on a given situation for all. And do bear in mind that the model was not intended as a
habit disruption strategy, but as a model that portrays how change sequences take place. This
proposition however differs from the theory since it states that different people prefer different
approaches. Some prefer evolutionary change while others prefer revolutionary change. But when
seen in the light of the time span of the entire change process, it is in line with the general notions of
the punctuated equilibrium model. When looking at the conceptual model, these interpretations can
be translated as depicted below.
Figure 7: Conceptual Model – proposition 1
26. 25 | P a g e
4.2 Changing Habits – Coping & Habits
Users contributed usage of the legacy systems as being their personal status quo and described it as
being a habit. No pressure from management was exerted, nor experienced by the participants of
this case study, to start using UDT. Participants were enthusiastic about the new system, often did
see the advantages, but did not embrace it by actually infusing it in their daily routines. Since
management did not exert pressure to use UDT, it was the users’ choice whether to use it or not. Yet
there was a big discrepancy between how people felt about UDT and how they dealt with it. Each
and every user indicated that using UDT could contribute to their efficiency and each and every user
had a predominately positive attitude towards UDT. When asked why they still used the legacy
system, or why they used UDT in certain cases, they gave habituation as one of the main reasons.
Various users contributed the use of legacy systems to their longstanding routines and habits.
Albert: “Een stukje automatisme [...] daarom pak ik dan [systeem x] erbij.” / “A piece of
automatism [...] that is why I go to [system x].”
Marc: “Ja, eigenlijk gewoonte” / “Yes, basically habit.”
Pete: “Dan kun je loggen vanuit [UDT]. Nou dat doe ik gewoon niet omdat ik dat niet
gewend ben.“ / “Than you can log within [UDT]. Well I do not do that, because I am
not used to that.”
As mentioned, a lot of the legacy systems were introduced in the around the turn of the millennium
or even in the 1990’s. Two of these legacy systems in particular had to be used virtually every single
time when a user had contact with a customer. This also meant that the habit to use these systems
was particular strong.
A habit that was quickly formed within UDT was the already mentioned “checking of the customer
overview”. Gaining a similar overview was in theory possible in the legacy systems, but it was rather
unwieldy. The elaborate process to achieve this, meant that the habit to do so, was hardly there or
just as a weak habit. Managers however always pressed their employees to get a holistic view of
their customer in order to serve the customer as well as possible. The introduction of UDT changed
the way how employees worked. Instead of just occasionally checking the customers’ overview, they
started doing this on a regular basis. In this way the weakness of the prior habit and the ease of use
of UDT not only helped them to meet their manager’s demands, but it also enabled the formation of
a new habit.
Users referred to their behavior as being automated. When asked if they used UDT a typical response
was the employee said that he felt like he should use UDT more. As a follow up we discussed why he
or she would use the legacy systems instead.
27. 26 | P a g e
Albert: “[Het is] een combinatie van het automatisme om naar [systeem b] te gaan en ook
een beetje [het] vergeten om het [gebruik] aan te leren in [UDT].” / “[It is] a
combination of the automatism of going to [system b] and also a bit forgetting to
learn [to use] UDT.”
Marc: “Ontwenning, gebruikersgemak en gewoon ja omdat ik het niet vaak genoeg doe.” /
“Unlearning a habit, ease of use and just, well, because I don’t practice it enough.”
Vivian: “[Het is] deels gewenning, dat je automatisch [systeem b] pakt” / [It’s] partially
habituation, that you automatically go to [system b]”
One of questions of the interview was whether the users saw similarities between UDT and the
legacy systems. Most of the users only saw some resemblances with the legacy systems, but focused
more on the differences and regarded UDT as being completely new. On the other side of the coin
were the developers of UDT who stated that they had encapsulated features of the legacy system in
UDT and that it had been designed to resemble the legacy systems as close as possible. Somehow a
disparity between the vision of the developers and the actual experience of some of the users
occurred.
Question: “Zijn er functionaliteiten binnen UDT die je in vorige systemen ook had qua uiterlijk,
gebruik, functionaliteit?” / “Are there features within UDT that you also had in
previous systems, like appearance, usage of functionality?”
Answers negative:
Pete: “Nee. Nou nee niet zo snel. / No. Well, no not really.”
John: “Dat verschilt behoorlijk. Ik ben daarom ook eerder geneigd om te kijken in [systeem
b].” / “That is rather different. That is why I’m inclined to look in [system b].”
Albert: “In essentie is het, nou, nee, nou, dat weet ik niet hoe het zit. Daar moet ik eerlijk in
zijn.” / “In essence it is, well, no, well, I don’t really know how it is. That is something I
have to be honest about.”
Answers positive:
Mike: “Qua opzet is het overeenkomstig, maar [UDT] is meer op de computermuis gespitst
dan op het toetsenbord.” / “Design-wise it is similar, but [UDT] puts a focus on the
mouse of a computer instead of the keyboard.”
28. 27 | P a g e
Alice: “Tuurlijk, want in [systeem b], het loggen bij [systeem b] en [UDT] heeft opzich wel
een beetje de zelfde opbouw.” / Ofcourse, because in [system b], logging in [system b]
and [UDT] are kind of similar in design.
Marc: “Dat is bijna gelijk [...]” / “That is almost similar [...]”.
Christine: “In [system a] loggen en in [UDT] loggen zie ik als dezelfde functionaliteit.” / “I see
logging in [system a] and logging in [UDT] as being the same functionalities.”
What all the respondents did answer was that they prefer functionalities and lay-out to resemble the
legacy systems. Mike made a comparison between a popular operating system for computers.
Mike: “Nouja, als ik het zou vergelijken met windows7 en Windows8. Naar windows 8 zal ik
nooit overstappen omdat ik die tegelstructuur verschrikkelijk vind. Dus ik denk dat als
ze bij [UDT] zomaar iets geintroduceerd hadden, zonder te toetsen bij eindgebruikers,
hoe dat zou zijn, de inrichting, dat ik het dan zelf ook niet willen. [..] Zo van: laten we
het maar zo weergeven omdat het er wel leuk uitziet.” / “Well, if I would compare it
with Windows 7 and 8. I would never switch to Windows 8 because I despise the tile-
design. So I think that if they would have randomly introduced something with UDT,
without verifying how it would be, the lay-out, than I would not want that either. […]
Something like: Let’s just present it like this because it looks nice.”
The observations showed that the features that the user described as being (almost) identical to the
functions that they used in the legacy system were also the functions that they used most. Especially
the use of the logging function displayed that the users that did not see a clear resemblance between
that particular feature in the legacy system and the way it was implemented in UDT, did not use the
function in UDT. Those who did see the resemblance did use it.
Once it became apparent during the observations that the users were not fully aware of the
capabilities of UDT, I asked them to try to answer the next 3 questions solely using UDT, and only
switch back to a legacy system if there would be no other way to help the customer. The customers’
questions were not staged, so both the user and I would not know in advance whether the use of
UDT would be appropriate for the question. Since UDT is still under construction not all
functionalities from every legacy system have been transferred. The user would typically display two
responses. In the first response the user would start playing around with the system and would
figure out how this task could be performed. In the second response the user would ask a colleague
or even me if the task could be performed and if so, how. A combination of first trying and asking
once the user did not find a way, was recorded as well. An interesting observation was that all of the
users tried to search for an answer when I asked them to look for a solution within UDT. None of the
29. 28 | P a g e
users stayed with their initial reaction that it just was not possible or switched back to the legacy
system. All were willing and able to experiment with the system.
When Mike was asked when he would experiment most with the system, he answered that he
needed time to experiment. If work was busy he did not find time to experiment and therefore did
not discover features that he did not know about. As a result he stuck with his old habits and
routines.
4.2.1 Interpretations
Analysis of the answers supports proposition 5. Almost every participant in this case declared to view
UDT as an opportunity. However, the strength of habit to use the legacy systems for the most
commonly performed tasks was incredibly strong. As a result the adaptation strategies were
disregarded and the user exited the situation, resulting in inertia. This supports the notion that the
stronger the habit, the more likely the user is to opt out and continue performing their tasks as they
used to, when that option is available. With the weak habits like checking the overview, it was the
other way around.
Proposition 5: The strength of a habit will moderate the outcome of the adaptation
strategy as proposed in CMUA.
Users that saw similarities between the legacy system and the new system regarded the new system
to be easier and were more inclined to use it in a similar fashion as the legacy system than users who
did not see similarities. These results are in line with propositions 2, 4a and b.
Proposition 2: When system designers use a similar interface, and use the same task
sequences as were used in the incumbent legacy system, habits that
were gained while using the incumbent system will be triggered
within the new system.
Proposition 4a: There is a positive relation between perceived similarity of the legacy
system and new IS and the approach method.
Proposition 4b: There is a positive relation between perceived differences of the
legacy system and new IS and the avoidance method.
These findings are in line with the notions of the strength of habit in relation to their persistency
when tried to change as described by Holland et al. (2006) and Polivy & Herman (2002). It does differ
from the general notions of Beaudry & Pinsonneault's (2005) CMUA model. Adding incumbent habits
and routines as variables to this model would, in my opinion, be a valuable addition. On a practical
30. 29 | P a g e
note; in order to achieve a positive usage outcome regarding the CMUA model, system developers
are recommended to design an interface, and use task sequences in a way that perceived similarities
between the old and new system are high. Not every user will automatically perceive similarities that
might be present. To stimulate the perception of similarities the developers can communicate with
the users in what way the new system resembles the incumbent system. When users experience
similarity they are also prone to be triggered to perform incumbent habits within the new
environment. The ability of habits being triggered due to environmental circumstances support the
findings of Ouellette & Wood (1998). Visualized these notion would within the conceptual model be
depicted as in picture 8.
Figure 8: Conceptual model – proposition 2, 4a, 4b and 5
4.3 Familiarity Pockets – Coping & Habits
The previous section already described that there is a relation between the perceived similarities
between the new and the old system and the coping method. The observations showed that the user
that saw similarities between the new and the old system used UDT more often. The more they used
it, the more in-depth knowledge they had about the functioning of the system.
Most of the users used UDT in one way or another and even though they felt in control of the
system, they used workarounds to get the work done. Two types of workarounds were identified.
The user would initiate workarounds either knowing about the way it could be done in UDT or
unaware of the possibilities in UDT. Especially when the user was unaware of the possibilities of UDT
he/she invented a personal solution. Only if they truly could not figure out a solution by themselves,
than they would ask for help or look it up in a manual. As a result users invented workarounds that
would actually take more time than just doing it in UDT.
31. 30 | P a g e
In one of the observations John would start up UDT and search for the source of the customer’s
problem. Within UDT there is a link to the system in which the user can find an action plan for
identified problems. If this link is used, it gives the possibility to log the answer, but also the article in
which the action plan is found, in the customer’s personal file. Instead he used UDT to indicate the
problem. Then John would switch to a manually opened version of the system with the action plans
and would search for the right solution. Manually opening the system gives no option to log the
conversation directly in the client’s personal file. Once the solution was found, he would perform the
necessary tasks and switch back to UDT. Within UDT he would press the link to open the system with
the action plans, enter the right query and log the contact. In this example John showed proper
knowledge of UDT’s use, but reinvented the way he would use it. John was used to manually opening
this system every single morning and would use it throughout the day. He was aware of the
possibilities and advantages of the use of UDT, yet he actively searched for a way to keep his long
formed habit alive.
Another popular workaround is where the user used UDT and then he/she would switch to a legacy
system that had to do with insurance premiums. UDT shows premiums that are still open for
payment, but also restitutions. Once the customer asked a question about a premium or restitution,
the user would open UDT and have a look at the premiums and restitutions. In this case it were
Albert and Pete who displayed this behavior several times. They knew that the answer was right in
front of them, yet did not know how to interpret the data or became insecure about their
interpretation of the data. This insecurity came from the fact that questions about insurance
premiums or restitutions did not come along that often. Because Albert and Pete did not know how
to interpret the data in UDT, the user would switch to the legacy system, look for the data and
answer the question.
Multiple users, John, Albert, Susan, Vivian, Christine and even Alice confessed during the
observations that if they logged a record in UDT, they would sometimes check in both UDT and in the
legacy system whether it was logged correctly, just for reassurance. None of these users recalled any
occurrences where UDT failed to log the conversation. When asked why they still checked the legacy
system a point that was brought forward by some was that if they saw the log in the legacy system it
would feel more real to them. The legacy system was the system that they had always used and that
they trusted to be infallible.
In all of these examples the users were aware that UDT could be used, but decided to switch back to
a legacy system. Both of these two users, but also others, showed behavior where they started out in
UDT but thought the answer to their question would not be displayed in it and directly switched to
the legacy system.
32. 31 | P a g e
4.3.1 Interpretation
Both users that knew the majority of UDT’s features as well as the users that weren’t as familiar with
the system displayed workarounds. There did not seem to be a difference in users that saw
similarities or not and the formation of workarounds. These results seem to disprove proposition 3.
Proposition 3: When system designers use a similar interface, and use the same task
sequences as were used in the incumbent legacy system, users will
invent less workarounds since incumbent habits are triggered.
Even though similarities between both systems are prone to trigger habitual behavior, users still form
workarounds once they are faced with circumstances which they do not immediately recognize or
know how to respond to. Once this occurs users tend to invent personal workaround instead of
turning to the manual or asking an expert. A similar result was found by Yamauchi & Swanson (2010,
p. 196) who state that “instead of acquiring knowledge of how things are really done, reps developed
practices to work around what they did not know.” The expected relation between perceived
similarities and the invention of workarounds could not be found during this study. As a rival
proposition, one could argue that the invention of workarounds is part of human ingenuity and will
happen regardless.
33. 32 | P a g e
5. Discussion and Conclusions
The discussion and conclusions section of this paper will offer an explanation of findings in relation to
other studies and compare the results for similarities and/ or differences. Furthermore it will address
the answer to the research question, theoretical implications, managerial implications, limitations
and suggested future research.
5.1 Limitations and future research
The outcome of this study makes several contributions, both to research and to practice. As with any
scientific undertaking, this study is not bereft of limitations; these in turn make opportunities for
further research.
One of the main limitations of a case study approach, such as this one, is that the ideas that are
brought forward in this paper remain speculative. In this particular case the study was performed at
only one department within one organization, so the results might not be generalizable beyond the
means of this study. Furthermore the sample in this study was too small to perform quantitative
tests. I would recommend future research, testing the propositions with larger samples and within
different fields of industry. This study does provide an excellent starting point to further test the
mentioned propositions.
As already mentioned, the initial set up aimed at conducting this study at two departments. During
the project it became clear that the department that chose a revolutionary introduction approach
had to cope with some delays, which in the end forced me to exclude that department from this
study. As a result the findings of proposition 1 were based on the comments provided by users that
experienced evolutionary change, but preferred revolutionary change. Although this fact might not
be the perfect situation for comparing evolutionary versus revolutionary change, it did inspire me
when formulating the revised version of proposition 1. It would be a great opportunity for future
research to test this new view on the punctuated equilibrium model provided by the first proposition
in an environment where the same system is simultaneously introduced with an evolutionary and in
a revolutionary approach.
The same goes for proposition 3 where the assumed relation between perceived similarities and a
decline in the development of workarounds was not found. An alternative explanation could be that
human ingenuity is at the base of the formation of workarounds and will happen regardless.
5.2 Conclusion and Recommendations
This paper sheds light on the conundrum of how incumbent system habits formed within a legacy
system environment play a role in individual adaptation behavior when using new technological
applications. It shows that these incumbent habits not only influence the outcome of coping
strategies, it also describes how they influence familiarity pockets and thus adaptation. The strength
34. 33 | P a g e
of habits that are formed within a legacy system are so strong that they can result in a complete or
partial exit when it comes to coping strategies, even if the user’s initial appraisal of the system is
positive. Yet by providing environmental triggers the incumbent habits can be triggered within the
new environment which in return not only broadens the initial familiarity pocket, it also leads to the
formulation a new strategy regarding habit development strategies.
The main similarities and differences of this study are described in the “interpretation” paragraphs
within the results chapter, but a short recap will be given. The occurrence of inertia as described by
Boudreau & Robey (2005) was also experienced in this case. Many of the users did not change their
ways unless necessary. This observation is in line with Aarts et al. (1997) and Ouellette & Wood
(1998) who state change of habits is more likely to occur when change occurs in a revolutionary
manner. Findings concerning the strength of habit in relation to their persistency when tried to
change are in line with the descriptions of Holland et al. (2006) and Polivy & Herman (2002). It does
differ from the general notions of Beaudry & Pinsonneault's (2005) CMUA model, but they do not
include habit or routines in their model. The ability of habits being triggered due to environmental
circumstances support the findings of Ouellette & Wood (1998). The findings concerning
workarounds and familiarity pockets support the findings of Yamauchi & Swanson (2010, p. 196) who
state that “instead of acquiring knowledge of how things are really done, reps developed practices to
work around what they did not know.”
When it comes to the academic implications of this paper, I recommend investigating the punctuated
equilibrium model from a different point of view, as described in the future research paragraph. It
will help the ongoing discussion between proponents of planned and incremental change with a
focus on the individual level instead of the organization.
Also I recommend expanding the coping literature by adding the strength of habits and routines as a
moderator in the eventual coping strategy. Initial appraisals, be it positive or negative, can be
influenced by the strength of a habit. This research shows that habits can make sure that reaching
personal efficiency as described in the Beaudry & Pinsonneault's (2005) CMUA model is a virtually
unreachable goal. But they can also be used to broaden the familiarity pocket if they are activated
through environmental triggers. These findings provide a new strategy regarding the development of
new system habits and can be considered as additional propositions to those of Polites & Karahanna
(2013).
I would recommend change agents to implement change starting with evolutionary change where
users are free to adapt to the situation. Once those users have adapted to the system, revolutionary
change can take place in order to force / persuade the remainder of the (soon to be) users. Once
again, the punctuated equilibrium model itself was not designed as a change strategy, yet the
propositions of this paper suggest that implementing change in the proposed sequence is beneficial
to user acceptance.
35. 34 | P a g e
Lastly, I recommend system developers to design an interface, and use task sequences in a way that
perceived similarities between the old and new system are high. When users experience similarity
they are also prone to be triggered to perform incumbent habits within the new environment. In the
end one of the few things that truly matter for the success of an implementation, is the fact whether
users actually use the system as intended or not.
36. 35 | P a g e
References
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: automaticity in goal-directed
behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(1), 53-63.
Aarts, H., Paulussen, T., & Schaalma, H. (1997). Physical exercise habit: on the conceptualization and
formation of habitual health behaviours. Health education research, 12(3), 363-374.
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting behavior from actions in the past:
Repeated decision making or a matter of habit?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1355-
1374.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24(1), 19-36.
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information technology: A
coping model of user adaptation. Mis Quarterly, 493-524.
Benamati, J., & Lederer, A. L. (2001). Rapid information technology change, coping mechanisms, and
the emerging technologies group. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 183-202.
Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis TAM?. Journal of the association for information
systems, 8(4), 211-218.
Bennett, K. (1994). Legacy systems: coping with stress. Software, IEEE,12(1), 19-23.
Boonstra, A., & Van Offenbeek, M. (2010). Towards consistent modes of e‐health implementation:
structurational analysis of a telecare programme's limited success. Information Systems
Journal, 20(6), 537-561.
Boudreau, M. C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency
perspective. Organization science, 16(1), 3-18.
Bradac, J. J. (2001). Theory comparison: Uncertainty reduction, problematic integration, uncertainty
management, and other curious constructs. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 456-476.
Burnes, B. (2009). Management Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics. Prentice
Hall-Financial Times.
37. 36 | P a g e
Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual review of psychology, 61,
679-704.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an
electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information systems research, 14(2), 189-217.
Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: a
technological diffusion approach. Management science, 36(2), 123-139.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
De Lucia, A., Fasolino, A. R., & Pompella, E. (2001). A decisional framework for legacy system
management. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance
(ICSM'01), 642-651. IEEE Computer Society.
Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy
adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12(1), 33-54.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management
review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Models
in paleobiology. Freeman Cooper and Co, 82-115.
Fadel, K. J. (2012). User adaptation and infusion of information systems. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 52(3), 1-10.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2),
219-245.
Goode, S. (2012). Engagement and Disengagement in Online Service Failure: Contrasting Problem
and Emotional Coping Effects. Journal of Internet Commerce, 11(3), 226-253.
Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2004). The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits and
routines. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3), 281-307.
38. 37 | P a g e
Holland, R. W., Aarts, H., & Langendam, D. (2006). Breaking and creating habits on the working floor:
A field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 42(6), 776-783.
Jasperson, J. S., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post-
adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. Mis
Quarterly, 29(3), 525-557.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1993). Organizing for Global Competition. Decision Sciences, 24(3), 547-
580.
Kim, S. S., & Malhotra, N. K. (2005). A longitudinal model of continued IS use: An integrative view of
four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management science, 51(5), 741-755.
Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2007). A triple take on information system implementation. Organization
Science, 18(1), 89-107.
Lassila, K. S., & Brancheau, J. C. (1999). Adoption and utilization of commercial software packages:
exploring utilization equilibria, transitions, triggers, and tracks. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 63-90.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, coping and adaptation. New York: Springer.
Lehman, M. M. (1980). Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proceedings of the
IEEE, 68(9), 1060-1076.
Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention:
the case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 705-737.
Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Chin, W. W. (2001). Intention does not always matter: the contingent role
of habit on IT usage behavior. ECIS 2001 Proceedings, 274-286.
Liu, L., Feng, Y., Hu, Q., & Huang, X. (2011). From transactional user to VIP: how organizational and
cognitive factors affect ERP assimilation at individual level. European Journal of Information
Systems, 20(2), 186-200.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 2(3), 192-222.
39. 38 | P a g e
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction: Understanding the
Role of Enterprise Resource. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 34(1), 143-161.
Norman, D. A. (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological review,88(1), 1-15.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change
perspective. Information systems research, 7(1), 63-92.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying
Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 404-428.
Ortiz de Guinea, A., & Markus, M. L. (2009). Why break the habit of a lifetime? Rethinking the roles of
intention, habit, and emotion in continuing information technology use. Management Information
Systems Quarterly, 33(3), 433-444.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by
which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological bulletin, 124(1), 54-74.
Polites, G. L. (2009). The duality of habit in information technology acceptance. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia).
Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2012). Shackled to the Status Quo: The Inhibiting Effects of Incumbent
System Habit, Switching Costs, and Inertia on New System Acceptance. MIS quarterly, 36(1), 21-42.
Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2013). The embeddedness of information systems habits in
organizational and individual level routines: development and disruption. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 221-
246.
Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2002). If at first you don't succeed: False hopes of self-change. American
Psychologist, 57(9), 677-689.
Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American
psychologist, 41(7), 813-819.
Rugman, A., & Hodgetts, R. (2001). The end of global strategy. European Management Journal, 19(4),
333-343.
40. 39 | P a g e
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: a
review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological bulletin, 129(2),
216-269.
Sun, J. (2012). Why different people prefer different systems for different tasks: An activity
perspective on technology adoption in a dynamic user environment. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology,63(1), 48-63.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:
extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1997). Habit, information acquisition, and the
process of making travel mode choices. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(5), 539-560.
Verplanken, B., & Wood, W. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 90-103.
Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. (2007). Technological embeddedness and organizational
change. Organization Science, 18(5), 832-848.
Webb, T. L., Sheeran, P., & Luszczynska, A. (2009). Planning to break unwanted habits: Habit strength
moderates implementation intention effects on behaviour change. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 48(3), 507-523.
Yamauchi, Y., & Swanson, E. B. (2010). Local assimilation of an enterprise system: Situated learning
by means of familiarity pockets. Information and Organization, 20(3), 187-206.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Sage Publications.
41. 40 | P a g e
Appendixes
Appendix 1 – CMUA model
Model adapted from (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005)
42. 41 | P a g e
Appendix 2- Interview protocol
Beste collega,
Zoals ik net mondelijk heb uitgelegd, verzoek ik je om mee te helpen aan een onderzoek in opdracht
de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en SNS Reaal. In het kader van dit onderzoek, ben ik voornamelijk
geïnteresseerd in hoe jij omgaat met de systemen die je tot je beschikking hebt, maar ook naar jouw
mening over deze systemen.
Het eerste gedeelte van de deelname bestaat er uit dat ik bij je kom zitten om te obsereven hoe jij
deze systemen gebruikt. Daarna zal ik je een paar vragen stellen over hoe jij het gebruik van de
systemen ervaart, maar ook waarom je zo over bepaalde zaken denkt.
Alles wat wij bespreken zal volledig anoniem zijn. Na het interview zal ik uitschrijven wat wij
besproken hebben en eerst door jou laten controleren op juistheid. Voor dit onderzoek worden
alleen anonieme quotes gebruikt, wat inhoudt dat de complete inhoud van het interview niet wordt
vrijgegeven.
